May 12, 2004
Majority Of Independent Panel Opposes Reservoir Burial
Recommendation Is Not Binding Upon City Council
Already gotten to by Jack and Alexander, and originally spotted last night via an OPB News item, the panelists of the Mt. Tabor Independent Review Panel reached a split decision last night:
Nine of 13 panelists opposed the city's plan to bury the drinking water reservoirs on Mt. Tabor, preferring security measures to limit risks to the city's water supply.
A four-panelist minority, including chair Ogden Beeman, sided with the city, that burying the reservoirs would best protect water quality and the look of the park. Beeman told the majority they were forcing the decision on someone else.
We held off on posting about thisl ast night, because we were awaiting the inevitable Oregonian coverage today:
The panel majority did not decide Tuesday on a specific mix of risk-management measures to recommend. Among the options that have been discussed are fences, clearing vegetation from reservoir edges, motion detection devices and more lighting, security cameras and personnel.
Advocates of burial said that open reservoirs are an unsafe anachronism in an age of terrorism and that upcoming drinking water standards will require a closed water system -- a conclusion strongly disputed by burial opponents. Burial supporters also noted that other safety measures carry their own costs.
In his post on the results, Alexander criticized the way OPB termed the results, wondering why they focused on the panel's failure to reach a consensus. Well, consensus was what the City Council had urged in their January 14 resolution which created the panel:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the Independent Review Panel to produce a report to Council 90 days following the panel’s first meeting, with a consensus recommendation of a preferred option or, if that is not possible, findings on all of the options listing the advantages and disadvantages of each;
So it's not unreasonable to assert that the lack of consensus is definitely part of the story -- especially since consensus was probably urged by the Council so that it would have a clear mandate from the independent panel as to what to do next.
At any rate, according to The Oregonian, no date has yet been set for the panel to deliver its pair of reports to City Council, although the authorizing resolution established that such a report must be presented ninety days after the panel's first meeting, which was on February 17. That would make the deadline sometime next week (presuming we're counting calendar days and not only business days).
Comments (9)
Steve on 12 May 2004
Consensus indeed. I suspect Saltzman knew that would never happen, based on some of his pro-burial picks for the Panel- the Gang of Four (or five). As one of them, Tom Walsh, was quoted in the same Oregonian piece, they "could meet until the reservoirs freeze over" without agreement.
So there's Tom, big time local Developer who would like to keep on the good side of the City. Last week he supported his burial position almost exclusively on some last minute seismic mumbo jumbo by the Water Bureau, which was debunked by the final meeting last night. So when asked to explain his final rationales, suddenly he had switched to some standard stuff with no mention of seismic concerns, ie, whatever sounds good. Then there's Dr. William Glaze, Chair of one of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards, who stated at last week's meeting, to paraphrase, "frankly, I can't believe our forefather's created open water reservoirs. I've felt that way for 30 years." Then there's Captain Spitzer, Emergency Preparedness Manager of Mult. Co. Health Dept, head of Emergency Response. He's seen "better looking wastewater treatment plants than reservoir 6."
Jack Bog on 12 May 2004
Walsh, Goldschmidt's partner in the PGE deal? Now, why would he be biased?
Alexander Craghead on 12 May 2004
They made consensus a requirement???
"Everyone, play along and agree, and if you don't we don't care what you think."
Talk about stacking the deck! All they had to do is slip in one pro burial panelist and wham! No need to pay any attention to the report.
Hey Jack, looks like Neil has a sucessor: Dan Saltzman!
Dave Lister on 13 May 2004
If they go ahead with the burial now, and I think they will, it's only because there's tons and tons of payola involved.
The One True b!X on 13 May 2004
Interestingly, I read somewhere recently that one of the architects of the new EPA rules that are often cited as a reason turns out to be connected to MWH, the consulting firm that's had its fingers in just about every step of the burial plans.
The One True b!X on 13 May 2004
Interestingly, I read somewhere recently that one of the architects of the new EPA rules that are often cited as a reason turns out to be connected to MWH, the consulting firm that's had its fingers in just about every step of the burial plans.
The One True b!X on 13 May 2004
This is just a test of comments. Ignore!
steve on 14 May 2004
Other remarks by Walsh about reservoir 6: "It must have gone to the low bid," "It's nothing precious," "I'd remove everything there." Like his "seismic" comments, they were spoken at the next to last meeting. But by the last meeting, after probably getting an earful, his final slogan was "bury AND preserve," put everything back EXACTLY like it is, in a desperate attempt to sound sincere. I guess res. 6 wasn't so ugly suddenly. Of course, to do so is virtually impossible and, well, VERY expensive...uh, but very lucrative for others...hmmm. I give him points for effort.
steve on 14 May 2004
BiX- this is a better/additional OPB article link:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=618812