May 26, 2004

Independent Review Panel Releases Report On Mt. Tabor Reservoirs

Presents Majority And Minority Opinions Of The Panel

As expected this week, the Mt. Tabor Independent Review Panel has released its report (pdf) detailing its split decision in which eight members supported a "risk mitigation" option, and five members supported burial.

(Note: As explained on the Mt. Tabor IRP website, that above-linked pdf includes the Report and Appendices A, B, C, F, and G. Readers can also view Appendix D separately, but Appendix E, which consists of materials submitted to the panel by the public is still being compiled.)

In its deliberations, the panel discarded other options for the Mt. Tabor reservoirs, including: buried reservoirs without park improvements ("eliminated because of the adverse impact on and aesthetic degradation to Mt. Tabor Park"); treatment at the reservoir outlets ("eliminated because of its excessive expense to water users and the resultant cost to the Parks Bureau to move an existing maintenance yard"); removing reservoirs from use and seeking replacement storage ("eliminated because of its potential adverse impact on system reliability"); and a panel-proposed option to "do nothing" with the reservoirs ("eliminated because the Panel felt some action is required to ensure water safety").

Major findings from the panel's majority, in short form, are as follows and are taken verbatim from the report:

• Water quality in Portland is very good and meets all current federal regulations.
• There is a very low risk that a terrorist act would harm the City's water supplies.
• Vandals can access the water supplies, but are not likely to introduce an agent that would undermine the health of system users.
• Water rates are expected to rise steadily over the next decade, well ahead of the rate of inflation.
• Water usage in Portland is declining.
• There is no current federal or state regulation requiring that the reservoirs be buried.
• New federal regulations are in development, but are not yet complete. They could impact many aspects of the Portland water system, not just Mt. Tabor, but are not expected to ban open reservoirs systems.
• The reservoirs are a critical part of the history and character of Mt. Tabor Park.

See the full report for more detailed explanations of each of these findings. Worthy of note is that even within the majority, there was some differing opinion:

A majority of the Panel's members have determined that there is no compelling reason to bury the reservoirs at this time, nor may there ever be a compelling reason to bury them. Some members of the Panel majority believe all plans to eliminate open storage should be rejected permanently. Other majority members acknowledge that regulatory changes or other factors may lead to a decisioneliminate it now.

Based upon the majority's findings, it offers the following set of seven recommendations, taken verbatim from the report:

• The City Council should adopt a risk management strategy to ensure the safety and quality of drinking water supplies at Mt. Tabor Park.
• Since a specific risk mitigation plan was not provided in the Council resolution, a risk mitigation plan will need to be determined and considered by the public prior to City approval.
• A risk mitigation strategy should preserve the historic character of Mt. Tabor Park and adhere to the Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan.
• The City Council should revisit this issue in the future, potentially when new federal rules are finalized, or state rules enacted.
• Deferred maintenance at the reservoirs and elsewhere in the water system should be reviewed, and work completed where it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the reservoirs and the water delivery system.
• Potential changes to Mt. Tabor should not be considered in isolation. Rather, the City should consider all upgrades necessary as a result of any new regulation in a holistic manner, calling upon experts and community representatives to assist the city in devising a plan that meets regulatory requirements, maintains safe and reliable supplies and assures long-term affordability of the City's water services.
• Rate impacts should be minimized.

In the end, the majority opinion recommends that the City Council pursue "variations" on the two risk mitigation options presented to them, one of which was a proposal for risk mitigation from the Friends of the Reservoirs. "The Panel majority feels," says the report, "that additional measures at this time are not warranted given the limited risks on the system and the high costs that would be borne by ratepayers."

While the Panel did not have any real opportunity to examine possible risk mitigation strategies, it does offer several areas for possible consideration and further discussion, including additional security, better water-monitoring technology, animal control, and fencing. Interestingly, on that last item, the Panel specifically rejected its consultants' recommendation that a massive 40-yard perimeter would be required around the reservoirs.

As for the minority opinion -- which takes up all of two pages in the report, as compared to the eight pages for the majority opinion -- it says that its preference for burial was based on the following considerations: reservoir condition; location and gravity distribution; industry standards; water quality; intentional threats to water safety; terrorism; historic preservation; enhanced recreation and aesthetics; and cost.

With those considerations in mind (see the report for their "full" explanations), the Panel's minority recommended the following, which is taken verbatim:

• Retire Reservoir 1 from use as drinking water storage, and restore and maintain the facilities on top as they currently exist, or in accordance with Parks Bureau guiding principles.
• Bury two enclosed tanks beneath Reservoir 5 under the existing perimeter, and restore and maintain the facilities on top exactly as they currently exist.
• Bury enough storage to provide 20 MGD beneath Reservoir 6 North; the remainder of Reservoir 6 should be restored and maintained consistent with values and design guidelines established in the Mt. Tabor Master Plan and guiding principles.
• Do not replace lost storage capacity at Powell Butte or elsewhere, as it does not appear to be needed.

Now, it's not that we're intentionally giving short shrift to the minority opinion here. But they appear to do less than half the actual explanatory work done by the majority members in presenting their opinion and recommendation. One would think, with all of the discussion and debate both prior to this Panel's institution and during its existence (and especially given how much the lack of quality or quantity of proper discussion on the reservoirs has been an issue during this long controversy), that the minority might have thought to strongly -- or, Hell, even adequately -- detail its rationales.

To our reading, the minority opinion seems to partake of the same non-arguments that the Water Bureau and its own consultants themselves have been pitching since the beginning, wherein simple declaratory statements that something needs to be done as considered to be evidence enough, no further explanation or evidence required.

Hopefully, the City Council will take that into consideration when they decide what to do with the Panel's conflicting set of recommendations. It seems fairly evident to us that while the majority goes out of its way to demonstrate its case, the minority simply states that they are the ones who are correct.

That's the same sort of nonsense that started this entire mess to begin with, and now that the City Council will have a document in hand -- that being the majority opinion from the Panel -- which provides them some actual considered argument, they would be wise to heed it.

Posted at 07:43 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Design & Development

« Previous Next »