To the members of the Water Consortium Board,

1. First and foremost, there are many discrepancies in the Willamette River treatment plant application which are yet to be resolved. These include obtaining an access road to the property, sludge testing, endangered species act compliance, approval of discharges into an adjacent creek. The project violates the city of Wilsonville=s own requirements that it not be located in a Anatural hazard nor a geologic hazard area@.

Page 1

The project site (according to the latest map of the Natural Hazards in the City of Wilsonville from Metro Regional Services, dated 1999 No. 10382-GMS covering earthquake areas of concern in Wilsonville=s Water Treatment Plant proposed location, Metro Regional Services) is listed in the area of highest concern.

 

The DEQ requires the toxicity of the produced sludge of the plant must be tested (40 CFR 261.24). This category includes eight heavy metals and thirty-two organic chemicals, including ten pesticides. It appears that the sludge will be determined to be hazardous, and must therefore be handled and disposed of accordingly. At full plant production capacity, this will involve numerous truckloads of sludge removal each day. On-site personnel who handle the sludge will have to be trained according to the DEQ requirements for handling hazardous waste.

 

The Oregon Health Division requires the applicant to provide an updated master plan for the water treatment plant, required by OAR 333-061-0050. This is a twenty-year projection of numerous required information and data collection based on city needs for twenty years into the future. This is a separate master plan from their previous well field master plan and is required prior to construction.

 

The proposed treatment plant=s Aaction area@ includes an area extending 12.5 miles downstream from the plant location. The permit review has not covered the entire 12.5 mile area for all required documentation for the environmental impacts (EIS & ESA) that might cause harm to the environment and human populations downstream from the plant.

Page 2

The construction of a 109 foot bridge across Arrowhead Creek which is in Bonneville Power=s easement is prohibited by Bonneville Power unless the City has a written authorization from Bonneville Power agency.

 

 

2. Since the same engineering firm, Montgomery Watson, was awarded the Adesign-build@ contract for the Wilsonville treatment plant and was also commissioned to do the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (RTSS), we feel that bias has tainted the entire project planning. An independent study conducted by the consulting firm FISHER, SHEEHAN & COLTON , and commissioned by Tigard and Wilsonville CFSW concluded that the two cities are being Amaneuvered into a bad situation@, and that each city should have their own consultant, instead of all cities using the same firm - Montgomery Watson. The Executive Summary of this study is attached.

 

 

3. Third and most important, the desires of the consumers of the water (the residents in the southwest metropolitan area) have not been considered in the decision making process. The consumers= health concerns are reinforced by the increasing scientific evidence that small amounts of chemical compounds which are not removed by the treatment process do in fact accumulate in certain organs of the human body, potentially causing health problems.

 

Page 3

However we believe that (hypothetically speaking) even if in the future treated Willamette River water is determined to be safe to drink, that the consumers of that water should have a voice in deciding their water source, especially since they will be required to pay for, bathe in, and drink the water. There is a very strong resistance to Willamette River water, due to the Astigma@ of the polluted river. We believe that on this basis alone, that the purchasers and users of the water should have a voice in their water source.

 

The citizens of Tigard and Sherwood have defeated measures to use Willamette River water by over 80%, and we fully expect the outcome of the May 16^th election in Tualatin to yield similar results.

The results of a mail in survey conducted by CFSW of those residents served by the Tigard water system but living in King City, Durham, and the unincorporated areas showed that over 90% prefer Bull Run water over the Willamette.

 

As for Wilsonville, a complaint was filed by Wilsonville Citizens for Safe Water in August 1999 to the Elections Division of the Secretary of State, documenting Aelectioneering@ by the City of Wilsonville in promoting their revenue bond measure to fund the treatment plant. In addition, a complaint was also filed to the same agency by Jim Hansen, claiming that the Wilsonville based organization H2OK - which was the sole financial contributor to the Wilsonville PAC ALAWN@, (and also the sole financial contributor to the Tigard PAC ACitizens for the Safest Water@) both of which supported the Willamette treatment plant, was illegal since it had not registered as a PAC. The results of these complaints are still pending.

Page 4

In addition, the Wilsonville Citizens for Safe Water have filed a lawsuit against the City of Wilsonville, demanding that the City comply with their City Charter in allowing a future vote of the citizens of Wilsonville before introducing Willamette River water to their water system. We believe that, if the court allows a vote by the citizens of Wilsonville, and the citizens are given an accurate representation of the water options available to them, that they will vote against the Willamette River for their drinking water.

Any of the above situations could stop the construction of the Willamette River treatment plant. Because of this, plus the fact that the citizen inputs and desires are so resoundingly clear, it is here that we hope that you, the members of the Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC), will take our concerns, expertise, and wishes into the highest consideration in your decision making process.

 

As we of the southwestern cities perceive it, any permanent solution in a future water source has at least two parts to it. This idea concurs with the Base Case Scenario outlined by the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (RTSS) report. While the dynamics of which water source backs up other water sources has possible conflicts of interest, the idea itself is sound, and we are not in opposition to it. However, the only issue undecided is which of the four possible (RTSS) scenarios are to be implemented. The following paragraph on page E-11 in the RTSS report states; AThe most appropriate transmission network might look different depending on the source that Tigard, Sherwood, and others in Southern Washington County that are looking for water, chose as their primary source during the next few years. If the source becomes the Willamette River, then perhaps

the Zonal Scenario (Scenario 3) might be most appropriate. But, if the Portland system or Clackamas River becomes the source, Scenario 4 may be more appropriate.@ (emphasis added).

C. OUR AMENDMENTS: In essence, we are satisfied with the major components of Scenario 4, but we would like to have a fifth Scenario, which would include the following changes:

1. A water conduit connecting the Tualatin area with a source of Clackamas River Water (this is already included in Scenario four, but we believe that no matter what scenario is selected it should be included).

 

2. No Willamette River treatment plant construction, which would save approximately 50 million dollars (approximate initial construction cost) off of the unacceptable $200 million Scenario 4 price tag.

 

3. A smaller water conduit (30 inch) between Tualatin and Wilsonville that would flow North to South, not South to North.

 

4. Creating aquifer storage and recovery systems in the SW areas, an idea absent in this study, which would reduce the cost of the overall water system improvements.

 

Page 6

We would also like to see the estimated cost (in year 2000 dollars) of all five scenarios adjusted after allowing for the increased summer water supply provided by the planned Portland Columbia Southshore Wellfield ASR plan.

 

CONCLUSION: The conclusion of this statement is threefold.

First, the most desired and viable source of water for the greater part of Southwestern Washington County is not the Willamette River. The vote of the people in these cities confirms this. We don=t want it. Second, because the people have spoken so resoundingly against the Willamette, we are led to follow the conclusion of the RTSS Scenario four, which has Portland, Clackamas, and Trask water interconnections. However Scenario four does not allow for the possibility that Wilsonville residents will win in their fight against Willamette River water and does not provide a water source for Wilsonville other than the Willamette River. It is contradictory action to obey the will of the people and maintain validity in the RTSS report unless another option presents itself.

Our third and final point is simple. Throughout the whole process of examining future sources of water, there have been missed or ignored regulations, inappropriate and misleading tactics, and special interests catered to. Despite all of this interference, we, Citizens for Safe Water, have prepared this statement to illustrate how committed we are to a correct decision being passed. We offer a solution. We ask in return that you, the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board, who is representing us - the water consumers in your respective geographical areas - respect our years of effort, and the people=s wishes.