December 08, 2003
(Updated) Panel Appointed To Review Open Reservoir Replacement Project
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Once again, the twice-weekly Portland Tribune has to turn to its website to break a story between publication days:
After months of growing public criticism, City Commissioner Dan Saltzman says he will appoint a citizen panel to review the City Council�s controversial decision to replace the open reservoirs in Mount Tabor and Washington parks with underground storage tanks.
...
"There had been concerns expressed about the process leading to our decision in May 2002 to cover the open drinking water reservoirs," Saltzman said Monday afternoon. "To respond to those concerns, but also to keep with the plan that we have to do something, we're going to set up an independent review panel to look at what are the options for addressing the public health and the public safety needs of these aging facilities."
The only options the panel will be allowed to consider: "1. burying the reservoirs with park improvements; 2. burying the reservoirs without park improvements; 3. providing some sort of treatment technology for the open reservoirs; 4. putting together a risk mitigation plan perhaps recommending perimeter fencing and reservoir covers; 5. taking the reservoirs off-line as a drinking water source."
The article goes on to describe the reactions of reservoir burial critics and others members of the City Council.
Not too long ago, Saltzman was quoted as saying that any such panel, should one be created, would be strictly informational and not advisory.
The panel, whatever its authority or lack thereof, is intended to be underway sometime in January, and will work for 90 days to study the matter and make a recommendation to City Council.
Update
Today's Oregonian editorializes on the decision to form a review panel:
Whether or not they recognize it, this is a huge victory for opponents of the project. They have succeeded in making the city of Portland second-guess itself, which is not a bad thing. It does not, however, necessarily mean that their views about the covering and burial of the reservoirs will prevail.
I'm a little unclear, however, as to the independence of this panel. Neither the original Tribune piece or today's Oregonian editorial provide much in the way of information on how the panel members are chosen, except references to Saltzman appointing the panel and saying the people he's recruited so far are "very good."
How independent is it if the person whose decision is being reviewed is getting to select the members of the panel reviewing the decision?
Update
Also in today's Oregonian (but it only just showed up on their website, so I didn't know until just now) is an article on the decision:
Some opponents said the delay could mark a first step toward the project's ultimate end. Others were more cynical, fearing the committee would serve only to provide political cover for a foreordained conclusion favoring reservoir burial.
Also note Saltzman being quoted as saying, "If I thought this whole thing was going to be derailed, I wouldn't be doing this."
Apparently, or at least as it seems from this article, Saltzman will select his choices for the "independent" panel, and then the City Council will approve them.
Meanwhile, as noted in the article, two reservoir-related items were scheduled for this Wednesday's agenda before City Council, one of which would have "exempted the city's selection of a general contractor for the project from competitive bidding." Don't know the details on that one, but given all the criticism aimed at Saltzman and his Water Bureau for conflicts of interest involving various contractors in this project, it certainly doesn't sound very helpful.
Fortunately, Saltzman has pulled those two items from the agenda.
Update
You can read Saltzman's memo about the forthcoming panel via the page for the open reservoir replacement project.