October 17, 2003
(Updated) A Whole Bunch Of Coverage On The Mt. Tabor Reservoirs Lately
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
As one of the first subjects I started covering here when I launched this site, I keep trying to follow the conflict over burying the reservoirs at Mt. Tabor, with varying degrees of success. A recent post by Jack Bogdanski reminds me that I have some catching up to do again. I'll just try to go through recent items in (more or less) chronological order.
Reaching back into last week, we find that burial opponents are challenging the City's plans to issue $91 million in bonds, which would include money for the reservoir burial. As indicated in the linked-to Oregonian story, and as confirmed in today's Portand Tribune, the City has agreed to postpone the bind sale until the court hearing on the issue, currently scheduled for November 5:
The opponents include Citizens for Sale and Affordable Water, a political action committee that hopes to refer the bond sale to the voters. The foes contend that the December 2002 ordinance did not say it was related to the project, effectively preventing the group from mounting a referral campaign, as allowed by Oregon law.
If the court agrees, the committee will have 60 days to gather signatures from 5 percent of the city's voters to place the bond issue on the ballot.
Earlier this week, The Oregonian offered two looks at the reservoir controversy. In the first they examined how the issue of open reservoirs is being dealt with in other parts of the country:
Only 16 large U.S. utilities have open drinking water reservoirs. And at least half intend to bury, cover or deactivate them to improve water quality and security, a review by The Oregonian found.
But proposed federal rules would not require the city to cover or bury the reservoirs, as Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Mayor Vera Katz have asserted.
Actually, the assertion that this would be required by Federal rules is something that came from the consultant working with the City on the reservoir burial -- you know, the one with ties to the Water Bureau, despite City Hall's continuing insistence that there's nothing screwy or untoward going on here.
Then again, there is this tidbit from Phil Stanford in Tuesday's Tribune:
Water Commissioner Dan Saltzman may not be having second thoughts on the $107 million plan to cover the city's reservoirs -- but according to excellent City Hall sources, at least two other commissioners are. ... Why? Because it's beginning to dawn on them -- as it already has on just about everyone else in P-town with half a brain -- that capping the reservoirs simply won't protect the city's water system from terrorists. ... Remember how shortly after 9-11, Vera Katz took to the airwaves to urge everyone to tape up their windows? Well, folks, here's another idea that should sink like a rock.
Of course, the first bit of that item is a reference to a previous Stanford assertion that Saltzman himself was having second thoughts, something the Commissioner himself outright denies, and certainly he's never exhibited any sign of having second thoughts.
Anyway, the second piece from The Oregonian this week does delve into the conflicting estimates and assertions regarding the projects actual costs, which even the City has adjusted upward since the start of this whole mess. As the article's concluding paragraph states, burial opponents want to see a truly independent examination and cost estimate.
Returning briefly to the Jack Bogdanski post which spurred me to catch up on all of these items here, I have to say that I'm amused that one of his readers essentially accuses burial opponents of changing their story along the way. As near as I can tell, after all these months, the only party constantly changing its story on the reservoirs is City Hall.
Update
As to the design competition for "what goes on top" at the Mt. Tabor reservoirs, Commissioner Saltzman will be announcing the winning team on October 20.