Published: Monday, April 25, 2011, 8:00 AM Updated: Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 3:06 PM
By Guest Columnist The Oregonian By David Shaff
As Kent Craford and Kelly Campbell suggest in their recent commentary, the Portland Water Bureau delivers some of the world's purest drinking water ("The Water Bureau needs to hit the pause button," April 20). We share their view that the Bull Run's natural filtration system is more than adequate, and we're pleased that a year's worth of recent tests for cryptosporidium demonstrated that the parasite is not a threat to our water supply. Although we share plenty of common ground on the quality of our water and the view that the federal government's requirement to treat our water for cryptosporidium and cover our reservoirs should not apply to Portland, we cannot simply decline to comply with a federal law, as Craford and Campbell suggest. To do so would be illegal and irresponsible and would result in even greater costs to ratepayers in the form of fines from the federal government.
The Water Bureau is the agency responsible for ensuring that the water it delivers to more than 800,000 people in the Portland metro area is safe and in compliance with federal and state drinking water standards. Negative test results for cryptosporidium do not give us the power or authority to exempt ourselves from federal law. Only the federal government has that authority, and for seven years we have pursued every avenue available to avoid the requirements of that law.
We're not pursuing an extended-compliance timeframe for resolving the open reservoir requirements of the law because it is not an option. I cannot be clearer on this point. Asking for more time is not an option for Portland, as we have no legal or technical basis on which to ask for an extension. When Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a rule to deal with the threat of cryptosporidium, it expressly forbade the EPA from taking cost into consideration in mandating compliance.
But what about New York City, ask Craford and Campbell? New York City has one large uncovered drinking water reservoir, which the state of New York directed the city to cover by 2016 through an administrative order. Earlier this year, New York City formally requested a deferral of the deadline requirement for it to cover the reservoir, which would extend the compliance deadline to 2026, if it is granted. The city is requesting this extension because the nature of its system is such that covering the reservoir before completing other associated work in the system could potentially jeopardize public health. Portland, thankfully, does not have that problem. New York City's request has not been granted yet. To be clear, it is not requesting a variance to the open-reservoir requirements of federal law, and the time extension it is requesting is based on a threat to public health, not the cost of implementation.
Craford and Campbell also claim that because Rochester, New York's estimated cost of compliance is $25 million, Portland could find less expensive compliance strategies. Their analysis is misleading, first because Rochester serves only one-fourth as many people as Portland, and also because they choose to ignore vast differences between Portland's water system and Rochester's. Rochester's compliance strategy would be logistically very challenging to implement in Portland, and our costs would be considerably higher.
The passion that Portlanders feel for their water system is one of the great strengths of our city, and I appreciate the drive that Portlanders like Craford and Campbell have to protect one of our greatest assets. I share their passion to preserve our pristine water system. But I cannot responsibly agree with their suggestion that Portland defy federal law and subject ratepayers to severe fines on top of the already burdensome costs of compliance.
David Shaff is administrator of the Portland Water Bureau.
As Kent Craford and Kelly Campbell suggest in their recent commentary, the Portland Water Bureau delivers some of the world's purest drinking water ("The Water Bureau needs to hit the pause button," April 20). We share their view that the Bull Run's natural filtration system is more than adequate, and we're pleased that a year's worth of recent tests for cryptosporidium demonstrated that the parasite is not a threat to our water supply. Although we share plenty of common ground on the quality of our water and the view that the federal government's requirement to treat our water for cryptosporidium and cover our reservoirs should not apply to Portland, we cannot simply decline to comply with a federal law, as Craford and Campbell suggest. To do so would be illegal and irresponsible and would result in even greater costs to ratepayers in the form of fines from the federal government.
The Water Bureau is the agency responsible for ensuring that the water it delivers to more than 800,000 people in the Portland metro area is safe and in compliance with federal and state drinking water standards. Negative test results for cryptosporidium do not give us the power or authority to exempt ourselves from federal law. Only the federal government has that authority, and for seven years we have pursued every avenue available to avoid the requirements of that law.
We're not pursuing an extended-compliance timeframe for resolving the open reservoir requirements of the law because it is not an option. I cannot be clearer on this point. Asking for more time is not an option for Portland, as we have no legal or technical basis on which to ask for an extension. When Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a rule to deal with the threat of cryptosporidium, it expressly forbade the EPA from taking cost into consideration in mandating compliance.
But what about New York City, ask Craford and Campbell? New York City has one large uncovered drinking water reservoir, which the state of New York directed the city to cover by 2016 through an administrative order. Earlier this year, New York City formally requested a deferral of the deadline requirement for it to cover the reservoir, which would extend the compliance deadline to 2026, if it is granted. The city is requesting this extension because the nature of its system is such that covering the reservoir before completing other associated work in the system could potentially jeopardize public health. Portland, thankfully, does not have that problem. New York City's request has not been granted yet. To be clear, it is not requesting a variance to the open-reservoir requirements of federal law, and the time extension it is requesting is based on a threat to public health, not the cost of implementation.
Craford and Campbell also claim that because Rochester, New York's estimated cost of compliance is $25 million, Portland could find less expensive compliance strategies. Their analysis is misleading, first because Rochester serves only one-fourth as many people as Portland, and also because they choose to ignore vast differences between Portland's water system and Rochester's. Rochester's compliance strategy would be logistically very challenging to implement in Portland, and our costs would be considerably higher.
The passion that Portlanders feel for their water system is one of the great strengths of our city, and I appreciate the drive that Portlanders like Craford and Campbell have to protect one of our greatest assets. I share their passion to preserve our pristine water system. But I cannot responsibly agree with their suggestion that Portland defy federal law and subject ratepayers to severe fines on top of the already burdensome costs of compliance.
David Shaff is administrator of the Portland Water Bureau.
© 2011 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.
