Following years of planning and design, the Portland Water Bureau broke ground on its Carpenter Lane filtration plant in Boring earlier this summer garnering continued pushback from neighbors and the Cottrell Community Planning Organization.
In this fight between the rural residents and the city of Portland agency, there have been a handful of attempted question-and-answer events, meetings and now a Land Use Board of Appeals case in which the Cottrell CPO representatives, alongside six other organizations, are advocating for an appeal of the Multnomah County conditional use permit approval granted in November 2023.
A brief recap
For further context: The Portland Water Bureau began planning its new filtration plant in 2017, after a mandate from the Oregon Health Authority required the bureau build a facility to treat for cryptosporidium by 2027. This mandate was to bring the bureau into compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
The plant is the result of multiple incidents of detection of cryptosporidium, a potentially deadly organism that was first found in the Bull Run watershed in 2016.
The project is being built in conjunction with a nearby facility intended to reduce lead in Portland water pipes. The current estimated cost of the Bull Run Treatment Projects is $2.13 billion. This has increased from a projected $500 million since 2017. It includes direct project costs, indirect costs, inflation, bond reserves, interest costs and a project contingency.
The property for the filtration plant is zoned Multi-use Agricultural 20 acres, which is why a conditional use permit from Multnomah County is required. Other permits also are required for the project, including a Geologic Hazards Permit.
Groundbreaking concerns
In early 2023, the bureau submitted a completed permitting application to the county, triggering a 14-day public comment period. After an appointed hearings officer approved the application, Cottrell CPO representatives and others filed an appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
Now, a further development has only spurred on the ire of the site’s neighbors.
In January 2024, while conducting required testing for DEQ, the bureau found that some of the soil on the planned filtration plant site contained contaminants that exceed allowed screening levels. The agency then applied for a beneficial use determination (BUD), proposing reuse of the soil on site since the levels of contaminants were not within range to pose hazardous to neighboring residents.
The lead screenings were within naturally occurring levels, but according to the bureau’s beneficial use application: “the contaminated soils are impacted by historical chlorinated pesticide use including dieldrin. The soils deeper than 1.5 feet below the surface meet clean fill criteria.”
To address this, the agency has proposed they would stockpile the approximately 116,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil on the property while construction is in progress, placing it above the regional groundwater table.
“The contaminated soil is the surface soils (0-1.5 feet below ground surface...” the agency noted in its application to DEQ. “Deeper soils have been identified as meeting clean fill limits. The contaminated soil will be covered with one of two methods of covering (1) a geotextile fabric will be placed over the contaminated soil and 1 foot of clean fill will be placed over the top of the fabric. (2) if no geotextile is used, a 3-foot cover of clean fill will be placed over the contaminated soil. The protective cover will be maintained and vegetated post construction until stabilized.”
Unease lingers
The plan and explanations by DEQ and Portland Water Bureau representatives at a June 11 meeting involving the Cottrell CPO, the Pleasant Home Community Association, DEQ and the bureau have done little to assuage the neighbors’ concerns.
While members of the CPO have noted that “DEQ has been great (and) really responsive” to their emails, they continue to feel ignored by the water bureau and like the agency is moving full steam ahead despite lack of a final decision by LUBA.
“This case is tied up at the Land Use Board of Appeals, yet PWB continues on,” Cottrell CPO Secretary Lauren Courter said. “The Portland Water Bureau, and we all have seen this in the last five to six years, they’re keeping us in the dark.”
Courter added that she and others had concerns about when the contaminated soil is disturbed, how the bureau will keep it from being carried by the wind onto the neighboring residences.
“(This soil) hasn’t been disturbed in the way that it’s going to be disturbed by this project,” Courter told those assembled on June 11. “It’s going to be scooped up and piled up next to our residences. Blowing around in the wind until they cap it and cover it and take whatever mitigation measures they’re proposing here. But in the process of excavation, we are being exposed to this potentially. … That’s where I think a lot of the frustration is coming from ... here is that this is a long excavation process. Piles of this dirt are hanging out without any kind of protection, and we do not feel safe.”
Portland Water Bureau contractors mobilized to the site on June 3 and began moving dirt on June 11, as they say they are permitted to by the relevant regulatory authorities.
According to Portland Water Bureau Chief Engineer Jodie Inman, the legacy pesticides found in low concentrations in the soil are “not water soluble or easily stirred up,” so they’ve been deemed not harmful to nearby residents.
They also were commonly used on farmland in agricultural use prior to the 1980s, and by the nursery that once leased this land from the bureau for years after the property was purchased.
“Those legacy pesticides are something that is very common,” Inman told The Post. “They’ve probably been found on multiple other properties in the area and nationwide. It’s really a byproduct of common farming practices and part of the reason those pesticides were not allowed (anymore) or banned was because of their long-lastingness. Even though they were in use decades ago, it was found in very low levels. The levels are not at all harmful, well below any human health hazard. They are not going to make anybody who interacts with the soil sick.”
Inman further explained that, if not for the nature of this project, the soil might have not been tested.
“If you were just going to continue farming the property, nothing would happen,” she said. “You would just continue your farming actions, but it is part of the development. They want to seek to make the property better, and what they are concerned about is that those very low levels that were found of the pesticides could be harmful to your small ground feeding birds and mammals.”
That’s why mitigation comes into play to make the contaminated soil inaccessible to those creatures it might potentially harm. But as far as humans are concerned, both the bureau and DEQ have asserted that the levels on site don’t present a hazard to humans.
One option presented to the bureau of how to deal with the soil was to remove it from the site entirely; neighbors asked why this was not the option they chose. But while the bureau sees no substantial cost-saving reason for keeping and reusing the soil in a DEQ-approved way, they argue it could somewhat address another concern the CPO has expressed in the past: the number of truck trips made on Carpenter Lane and neighboring streets.
“There are really true benefits to the community and that is reduction in truck traffic by being able to reutilize it on site,” Inman said. “We try to think about decisions on a project that are more holistic, that consider costs but are not just cost related. And if we were at all concerned about the impact to anybody on the site, we may or may not make different decisions. There is a cost difference, but we also consider other factors such as a measurable reduction in truck trips, which the neighbors have also said is important. We are also thinking about future use of the site if we need to expand. So, even if the DEQ approves re-use on the site, we still may decide to haul off the contaminated soil, depending on what makes the most sense now and in the long-term.”
Other concerns
Cottrell CPO and Pleasant Home Community Association members have expressed other concerns about this phase of the project. Here are a few and Portland Water Bureau’s responses:
Neighbors of the site were skeptical about the fact that the contractor who performed the ecological screening of the site was hired by Portland Water Bureau.
In response to this, Inman said: “DEQ does not perform these screenings, so it is standard for owners to hire consultants to perform the studies and complete these kinds of reports. PBS Engineering and Environmental completed the filtration site assessment and are industry professionals. The sampling techniques and methodologies used were in alignment with current guidance to characterize and evaluate soil at the site.”
In the June 11 meeting, neighbors of the site alleged that this is one of many times the Water Bureau has faced issues with DEQ.
In response to this, PWB representatives said: “I am not sure what past issues the residents or the CPO are referring to, but we take all DEQ permit requirements and rules seriously. As construction has begun, we have had an interaction with DEQ about work on the site and ensuring it is in compliance with the permit. We will continue to meet with DEQ to provide pathways for quick resolution of any potential concerns noted. In the event we receive a warning from DEQ or any other regulatory agency, the Water Bureau reacts quickly to ensure its activities are in compliance.”
During the June 11 meeting, one neighbor of the site alleged that the noise of the construction was so bad it was shaking his home.
When asked what formal complaints the Water Bureau has received from neighbors about noise and how they’ve addressed them, representatives said: “We have received complaints from neighbors on Carpenter Lane regarding noise.”
“The noise generated is consistent with an active construction site,” they added. “However, the contractor is implementing a variety of noise control strategies such as requiring muffled exhausts on all equipment and locating stationary equipment as far from nearby private properties as possible. We are also using a sound level meter to confirm County noise levels are compliant with land use conditions and the Multnomah County Code sound control regulations.”
Some have asked if the Bureau had known when they purchased the Carpenter Lane property 50 years ago that there was contaminated soil, if they’d sill have bought and used the land.
In response, Inman said: “We are not aware of any soil testing that may have been completed when the property was purchased in 1975.”
“Since it was nearly 50 years ago, I cannot speculate how the city may have handled the purchase,” Inman added. “What I know now is that the low levels of pesticides compounds detected at the site recently are not unusual in agricultural settings. They are below the DEQ human health risk-based concentrations and well below occupational and construction worker risk values. The contaminants are also not soluble and will not leach or migrate easily to surface water or groundwater.”
While Inman told The Post that the bureau has struggled in the past to find “meaningful outcome” from engagements with locals opposing the project through hosting outreach events, people are always still welcome to contact them with questions and concerns.
The best contact for this is Bonita Oswald at 503-823-1505 or bullrunprojects@portlandoregon.gov.
Those interested in providing public comment to DEQ on the Portland Water Bureau’s beneficial use determination application can still do so before by 5 p.m. Friday, July 26, either by mailing them to Solid Waste Permit Coordinator, Oregon DEQ, 700 N.E. Multnomah St. Suite 600, Portland, OR 97232 or emailing them to SolidWastePermitCoordinator.DEQNWR@deq.oregon.gov.
Most Popular
Comments / 0