Big Pipe Breaks Ground
Maria Thi Mai
Today marks the beginning of the final major project in our 20-year program to control combined sewer overflows, also known as CSOs, to the Willamette River. This morning, I was joined by staff from the Bureau of Enviornmental Services, Kiewitt Belfinger and Berger (KBB) and a host of other local community memberss to break ground on the East Side Big Pipe Project--one of the largest, longest, and deepest tunneling projects in the United States.
The east side big pipe will reduce sewage overflows to the river by 94%. When we started this effort in 1991, annual CSO volume to the slough and river was 6 billion gallons. With our cornerstone and Columbia Slough projects, we have reduced that volume by 54%.
In terms of supporting the local economy we estimate that we will spend $53 million on construction contracts with local businesses. Our goal is that $26 million of that will go to minority, women and emerging small businesses.
The tunnel begins at SE 17th and McLoughlin and continues north to Swan Island, 6 miles of underground tunnel. Our contractor, KBB will build a 22-foot diameter tunnel 85 to 165 feet deep, 7 tunnel shafts approximately 50-feet in diameter, and other pipelines and 5 smaller shafts or structures to complete the project.
While we’re working on this project for clean rivers, there are things all of us can do to pitch in. Plant trees, use native plants in your yard and disconnect your downspouts.
Posted by Maria Thi Mai on May 12, 2006
(43) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Environmental Services, Events, Front Page, Livability & Environment
Comments by site visitors
I wonder if infill development and forced densities have anything to do with the need of this project?
It seems to me that the most "green" way to deal with storm water is to let it be absorbed by large front and back yards, not multiple row house roofs.
Posted by: Anthony | May 16, 2006 10:24:47 AM
Anthony, the stormwater runoff from even low-density detached single family residence rooftops and pavement - let alone from dense row houses - is enough to warrant this project since most of it flows right alongside the sanitary stuff we all flush down and therefore forces it into the Willamette when it rains. The large front and back yards you speak of may be common the further you get from the urban center, but the standard 50'x100' lot seen mostly in the urban center - even without infill development on it - can't always fully support roof infiltration due to soil conditions, topography (i.e. you don't want to wash your downstream neighbor out), etc. The downspout disconnection program is voluntary anyway, so the City can't force everyone to do it, even if it WOULD work on every property.
Plus, most of the Westside (so switching gears to the Westside Big Pipe for a moment here) can't accept forced infiltration because of steep slopes and associated landslide hazards.
Your premise seems to be that infill and density is bad, but you live in a city. Even 50'x100' lots with only one dwelling on it are "dense" compared to rural or - dare I say it? - natural conditions, so I'm not sure your argument that we should be less dense would ever gain traction. It's obvious that even with current conditions there needs to be an infrastructure fix to the sewer overflows, hence the Big Pipes.
Posted by: Stephen | May 16, 2006 11:09:44 AM
It should be pointed out that most of the toxic run-off is from parking lots and roads off which rains flush the residue from motor vehicles into the river. The pity is that Portland water/sewer ratepayers are paying the entire bill for this project, while those who drive motor vehicles on City streets are getting a free ride.
Why not a surcharge on gas, oil and tires to pay for half?
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | May 16, 2006 1:56:18 PM
Lenny Anderson (who is/was paid to get cars off the road) The pity is that Portland water/sewer ratepayers are paying the entire bill for this project, while those who drive motor vehicles on City streets are getting a free ride.
Why not a surcharge on gas, oil and tires to pay for half?
JK: But “the water/sewer ratepayer” and “those who drive motor vehicles” are mostly the same people so to a great extent it is user pays. This is unlike the situation with mass transit where everyone pays (through employer tax, road tax etc.) And few benefit.
Some claim that everyone benefits from reduced congestion, but transit’s market share is so tiny that the same amount of money spent on increasing road capacity would give far more congestion relief. Further the toy train people have finally admitted that the real purpose of light rail is not transportation, but to force unwanted high density down our throats. The code word for this is “to focus density where we want it” IE: Everyplace in Portland within 1/4 mile of a toy train station OR BUS LINE with frequent service.
Thanks
JK,(who receives no income form city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth)
Posted by: jim karlock | May 16, 2006 4:41:01 PM
Too bad Sam missed the groundbreaking, maybe he could have done a video-hookup from the taxpayer funded trip to Lyons, France?
Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2006 6:23:02 AM
Steve -
One can argue about whether or not the Lyons trip is useful/necessary, but if such trips are going to take place, I'd much rather they be funded by us taxpayers than by lobbyists, insiders and campaign contributors.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 9:56:34 AM
I'll bet France would love to have that Owens Corning plant, what with 11% unemployment and all.
HEY SAM: tell them you've got the inside line on a HUGE Job Creator that was a bad fit for the Peoples Republic of Portland!
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 9:59:52 AM
Alice -
What on earth would Sam, or the City of Portland have to do with the Owens Corning deal?
The plant is being built in Gresham, the regulations in question are federal/EPA, and the lawsuits involved are coming from environmental groups.
Reference:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_east_news/1147141519321570.xml&coll=7
If you want to gripe about this, try a City of Gresham blog, an EPA blog, or maybe an anti-environmental-group blog.
At least JK, for all the snarkiness he invoked in his comment, attempted to segue from the topic (stormwater construction project) to his gripe.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 10:16:01 AM
The link I provided above regarding the Owens Corning plant got truncated by the blog software... here is another attempt:
Oregonian Article on Owens Corning Plant
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 10:17:53 AM
Hostile Business Climate.
I'm not suggesting it's unique to Portland, or even Oregon. It is a philosophy that is warmly embraced by Portland's elected officials.
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 11:51:00 AM
Sam Adams said, "Wal-Mart is wrong for Portland"
BOB R: Is that because of the environmental impact that Wal-Mart would have? Or, is it good politics for Sam to protect his political future by pandering to the p/c anti-corporate lefties?
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 11:57:21 AM
So, Alice, you wish to ignore the fact that your comment about Owens Corning not only had nothing to do with Sam Adams or the City of Portland, or city sewers, but now wish to run on to a discussion of WalMart.
I'd be happy to discuss any of these topics with you in the appropriate forum, but running from topic to topic to topic without ever addressing salient points is no way to carry on a discussion.
Good day.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 11:59:39 AM
Gee Bob, why did Maria Ti Mai have her hands in ousting Owens Corning?
http://www.commissionersam.com/sam_adams/2006/05/owens_corning_b.html
Or are you naive enough to think the states' largest city has no influence over adjacent jurisdictions?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 17, 2006 12:59:57 PM
Sam is in France, correct?
On official business?
And Bob R. prefers the City pay for Sam's trip to France. Why wouldn't Sam pay for Sam's trip to France.
The City of Portland doesn't (currently) have any plans to incorporate Lyon into Portland City Limits. He isn't going to learn anything about job creation in France!
I am using a certain measure of sarcasm to point out that our elected officials are easily distracted, and may sometimes pursue their narrow self-interest (junkets to France, pandering to the anti-WalMart hordes) at the expense of making good policy decisions.
Good Day.
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 1:00:55 PM
Gee, Chris, who at Owens Corning said that they were "Ousted"? Why should Owens Corning receive waivers to _federal_ regulations that other companies have to follow?
Since when is a neighboring community weighing in about air quality impacts in a non-binding letter an "ouster"? The air in Gresham blows generally to the west, no? Which town is influencing which town, again?
And what, Chris, does any of that have to do with France or storm sewers?
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 1:27:19 PM
Incidentally, if anyone cares what Mr. Adams is actually doing in France, below is a link to the conference schedule for today. Among the featured panelists is Mr. Adams himself. The conference has over 1,000 attendees.
Global City Forum schedule for May 17, 2006
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 1:36:13 PM
You asked,"What on earth would Sam, or the City of Portland have to do with the Owens Corning deal?"
I provided facts that a representative from the city of Portland urged the EPA to deny the OC waiver.
Keep dancing Bob.
Posted by: chris McMullen | May 17, 2006 1:43:43 PM
Chris -
I do believe it is Alice who is leading in this dance. She did, after all, first bring up the topic of Owens Corning in a thread about storm sewers.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 1:52:06 PM
Lenny stated: “The pity is that Portland water/sewer ratepayers are paying the entire bill for this project, while those who drive motor vehicles on City streets are getting a free ride. Why not a surcharge on gas, oil and tires to pay for half?” (May 16, 2006)
What Lenny (who represents freight and trucking interests and advocates bicycle interests) failed to mention is that semi-trucks, commercial delivery trucks and freeloading bicyclists also use the streets and roads. Furthermore, semi-trucks and delivery truck fleets require large paved parking. Therefore any such taxes he suggests should be at least triple on big rigs to cover the parking lots and larger tire sizes. The triple charge should also apply to bicycle tires since bicyclists currently contribute zero in direct taxes towards bicycle infrastructure and bike lanes. The big problem with Lenny’s proposal is how do you charge the out-of-town truckers that have business in Portland, and how do you charge the people of surrounding communities such as Beaverton, Gresham, Oregon City, Vancouver and others that regularly use Portland streets and roads? The obvious answer is that Lenny’s comments are based solely on his special interests and just another attempt to apply social engineering to the people of Portland. Logically his comments are unreasonable and show contempt towards choice of mobility.
Looking back several decades, there was a time when the Federal Government was offering subsidies and grants to cities to update faltering sewer systems. To my knowledge, the City of Portland never applied for funds while the program was in effect, and now we are all paying the price for that negligence. It should also be noted that big business downtown also received a subsidy from ratepayers a number of years ago when the regular sewer system and street runoff systems in the central business district were separated.
So given that background, who should pay the price tag for projects like the big pipe? The five plus percent increase in sewer bills every year is not the answer. Such increases only exceed inflation, make living in Portland less affordable and conflicts with the City’s own affordable housing policies. Increased densities, new development and population growth are the driving forces behind the need for upgraded sewer facilities. Therefore, the obvious and right answer is the developers of new high density complexes like Homer Williams, his partners and the other subsidized special interest developers of big projects that are currently on the City funded gravy train. One example would be a hefty tax for every new toilet installed. Another example would be a surcharge for sidewalk to sidewalk development that lacks attached permeable green spaces. At any rate, it should be the developers and development interests that pay for the big pipe, not the average ratepayers. The real “pity” (to use Lenny’s phrase) is that Portland public officials still view the average Portland taxpayer as an endless resource to fund whatever whim comes along.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 17, 2006 2:01:28 PM
Bob:
I've been asked to speak at my class reunion, and there will be nearly 500 in attendance.
Could the City of Portland pay my travel costs and expenses? Pretty please.
What's the difference?
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 2:52:13 PM
Alice -
That you cannot see the difference between a public official attending an international conference of 1,000+ government officials, planners, and experts in various fields and you speaking at your high school reunion.
However, I'm willing to meet most of your demands. If you ride TriMet to your reunion, the city will subsidize 4/5 of your journey without need for reimbursement.
You may email me after the event and I'll send you my fax #. You can fax a copy of your dated TriMet ticket stub (showing zone and fare), the letter of invitation from your school, and one additional piece of documentation proving you actually showed up and spoke. Then, I will gladly send you, out of my own pocket, the remaining 1/5.
You're welcome. Good luck on that speech. Maybe you can tell your class what any of this has to do with storm sewers.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 3:13:39 PM
Alice... I should have proofread more before posting... my first paragraph should read:
"That you cannot see the difference between a public official attending an international conference of 1,000+ government officials, planners, and experts in various fields and you speaking at your high school reunion _speaks_ _volumes_ about you."
Thanks,
Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 3:15:08 PM
If Sam Adams aspires to higher office (U.S. Congress, for example), I can see tremendous advantages in meeting with other ambitious politicians in France. In my opinion, he is simply furthering his political and travel aspirations on the city's dime.
Travel to Lyons, France is no more integral to his mission as City Commissioner that his attendance at his class reunion (or mine for that matter). It used to be a politician would take a junket to Las Vegas or Hawaii, and call it work.
Now it's France, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic. But that's O.K. because Sam has his loyal lap dog to defend him on the blogosphere.
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 3:42:42 PM
You think I'm Sam's lapdog? Hilarious.
I did vote for the guy, but I've taken issue with a couple of his actions since he took office.
1. Reopening the Burnside-Couch couplet debate. Handled poorly in my opinion, wouldn't have happened were it not for the powerful voices raised in particular high-end condo.
2. I feel he should have held out for more concessions on the Tram from OHSU.
It's nice how people in these discussions A) can't keep to discussing anything close to the original topic, B) resort to shouting people down (Steve Schopp admonishing me to "shut up") and now C) name calling ("lapdog").
How do you expect to get a serious response to any of your concerns with such behavior in this forum?
I personally wish Sam and his staff would be more forthcoming and engaging in these discussions, but it's no wonder why they rarely bother.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 17, 2006 3:58:33 PM
LOL Alice!
According to the conference schedule, it looks like it fits perfectly into Sam's governing agenda. It will provide him with even more tools for turning Portland into a european model -- complete with rampant unemployment, poverty, riots, high crime rates and unchecked immigration.
But hey, at least we'll have density and streetcars --maybe even socialized medicine.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 17, 2006 4:02:56 PM
Wow, amazing how easily people get off topic. Seems like any chance the righties get to preach about the horrors of smart growth, they take.
Anyway, for what it's worth, Lenny says:
"It should be pointed out that most of the toxic run-off is from parking lots and roads off which rains flush the residue from motor vehicles into the river."
Lenny, you may be right about toxics, but it's the sanitary flows (i.e. fecal matter and other bacteria) getting into the river that are not only the primary concern, but also the reason it's overflowing in the first place (because it's flowing in the same pipes as the stormwater). A surcharge on autos to foot a large portion of the bill wouldn't make any sense, when it's really the ratepayers (via their toilets) who are literally causing the problem.
Posted by: Stephen | May 17, 2006 5:23:43 PM
Do progressives generally support taxpayer sponsored trips to France for elected officials? How about dilligent Staff? Eager citizen activists? Where do you draw the line?
It doesn't really seem like a partisan issue to me.
Less left or right, and more right or wrong.
The schools are begging for money. The cop shop is struggling to stay open at night. There are potholes that can swallow a Prius in my neighborhood.
And Sam Adams is on a taxpayer paid trip to France. It seems perfectly relevant to me.
Posted by: Alice | May 17, 2006 8:01:49 PM
In any organization, the leaders should be taking opportunities to learn, grow, and share ideas and experiences with their peers. This applies to corporate executives, leaders of non-profits, and, yes, elected officials. Alice, if you have spent any time inside an organization, I would think you would agree with that. I feel like you are the one turning this into a partisan issue, focusing on the obvious outcries of school and police funding - even though school funding is not the City's responsibility - to decry a single trip taken by a Commissioner that you obviously don't like. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but the feeling I get from almost every one of your posts is that you are nothing BUT partisan.
So to answer your question, YES I support Sam going to France for a conference aimed at bringing together "urban decision-makers" (from the conference website). I would support that above pothole repair on my - let alone your - street anyday.
Posted by: Stephen | May 17, 2006 9:58:32 PM
School funding is not the city's business; but networking in France IS?
Beautiful. In the interests of full disclosure, I was equally disgusted when he travelled to New Zealand (or was it Australia), Holland, and Austria under the guise of "working".
I know travel agents that don't get these kind of freebies.
Mayor Sten, meet Congressman Adams: is this your first trip to Paris? You simply must try the Voter Owned fois grois. It is DIVINE!
Posted by: Alice in Wonderland | May 17, 2006 10:28:09 PM
Bob R.,
Get off your phony high horse.
I said, " Some of which might tell Bob to shut up and do some homework first" referring to the citizens you insulted with your uniformed comments about SoWa.
Regarding this France Trip?
It's only $118,000.00 plus PDC's share.
The trip is related to the PDC's newest big idea.
To make Portland a Sustainability Industry Cluster.
Now that they have moved on from their "creative services" idea and the idea of a biotech cluster in South Waterfront they need reasons for travel and busy work for the hundreds of employees at OSD and PDC.
Here are some excerpts from
PORTLAND BUSINESS JOURNAL MARCH 17, 2006
The city of Portland has wrangled an agreement from the Portland Development Commission to focus on attracting jobs related to sustainability-related industries.
The agreement between the city's Office of Sustainable Development and PDC calls for the economic development arm to actively pursue and encourage "green business to develop and locate here ."
"Such companies, in providing sustainable technologies, products and services, could help form a key-regional cluster", said Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman.
The council on March 15 unanimously approved a memorandum of understanding between the Office of Sustainable Development and PDC.
The PDC will now focus on the topic from an overall agency standpoint, as opposed to it's economic development department.
"Our commitment was strong to begin with, but it's gotten stronger,"said Tricia Ryan, PDC's senior economic development manager. "We've elevated it to an entire agency focus."
For his part, Portland Mayor Tom Potter will lead the a trip to Lyon, France, to attend a sustainability conference with local business leaders.
Attending with Potter are representatives of Gerdin/Edlen, the Portland Spirit and Rosenbaum Financial.
The program will cost the city $118,000,
The money will come from The Office of Sustainable Development's budget, part of which is funded by grants.
PDC costs have yet to be determined.
agiegerich@bizjournals.com 503-219-3419
Posted by: Steve Schopp | May 17, 2006 11:10:27 PM
Mr. Schopp -
First you tell me to "shut up" while calling me uninformed, and now you tell me I'm on my "high horse." (And what specific comments were "uninformed"? What citizens did I "insult"?)
Is this how you talked to people when you were running for public office?
Regarding the article you quote, can you provide a link to the complete article online? It appears to me that the article is talking both about a "program" and about a "trip", and the $118,000 referenced is in the context of a "program".
Are you going to provide answers or are you just going to tell me to "shut up" again?
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 18, 2006 10:32:11 AM
Since growth and high density development has created the need for increased sewer capacity, maybe after the City spends $118,000.00 of the public’s money (plus what PDC spends) for a stylish excursion to France, those attending will come back with inspired thoughts on how to charge the developers of this proposed sustainable expansion for the big pipe project rather than continuing to extort ratepayers. The word “sustainable” must also apply to project funding whereby taxpayers are not expected to subsidize any such new industry and development.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 18, 2006 10:34:17 AM
Aren't the people who live in or otherwise occupy these new developments going to be ratepayers paying for their sewer service just like everyone else? Or did I miss the part where they get it for free?
Posted by: Clay Fouts | May 18, 2006 10:55:06 AM
Steve: Sam was at the groundbreaking.
http://flickr.com/photos/benkay/145383009/
Jim Karlock:
As you invest in more roads, more people drive. Congestion dips, but then rockets back up to higher levels due to distorted perceptions of carrying capacity.
-Benkay, who takes pictures for Sam, but makes no money off the process.
Posted by: benkay | May 18, 2006 2:09:27 PM
Just thought I'd chime in to say that while a large delegation of private and puublic sector folks are going, "taxpayers' tab for Adams, his economic-development advisor, two Office of Sustainable Development staff and a City of Portland booth: $11,070"
You can find this in Willamette Week's May 18th issue.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | May 18, 2006 2:23:23 PM
"As you invest in more roads, more people drive. Congestion dips, but then rockets back up to higher levels due to distorted perceptions of carrying capacity."
Didn't Robert Moses, when he was head of Transportation for the State of New York, prior to WW2 come tho the same conclusion? And was one of the reasons for the World's Fairs in urban New York City because of the available mass transit (i.e. subway/train/bus).
So, lets require the Parking Lot Owners in Portland to make their lots porous and NOT run off into the sewers. Good first step. Make their fees and taxes proporional to degree of porousness.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | May 18, 2006 3:08:06 PM
Jesse writes: "taxpayers' tab for Adams, his economic-development advisor, two Office of Sustainable Development staff and a City of Portland booth: $11,070"
Thanks for the reality check, Jesse. I imagine PDOT couldn't even fill two potholes for that amount. I anxiously await Alice's wry - and perhaps insulting? - response.
Clay, you didn't miss anything. The new condo owners ARE ratepayers, and they WILL be paying for sewer service through their sewer bill. I think what Terry is advocating is that the developer be charged a fee for the increased load their development will have on the system. I tend to agree with that generally, though his comment on the ratepayers being "extorted" is too much. We are ratepayers because we are getting a service. Is it costly? Yes. But it's costly because of a number of external regulatory requirements, required ongoing maintenance AS WELL AS new development adding additional flow and requiring upgrades. Note that the new development is but one piece of the puzzle. The Big Pipe would be required whether or not SoWa - or even the Pearl, for that matter - were developed, so don't even try to tie this high-ticket item to Homer & friends. Unless you repeal all Federal environmental regulations, this thing was getting built.
Posted by: Stephen | May 18, 2006 3:49:26 PM
Jesse: who is picking up the rest of the bill for Portland's delegation?
What motivates them to underwrite these expenses?
Just because that $11,070 figure appears in Willy Week doesn't make it true.
Posted by: Alice | May 18, 2006 4:15:20 PM
Okay - this is just too much.
Steve, Chris and Alice...you are like three spoiled brats. You guys have the maturity level of 15 year olds.
Unbelievable.
I can practically taste the bitterness in your words. Please, do everyone a favor and *grow up*!
Posted by: nathan | May 22, 2006 7:34:12 AM
Okay - this is just too much.
Steve, Chris and Alice...you are like three spoiled brats. You guys have the maturity level of 15 year olds.
Unbelievable.
I can practically taste the bitterness in your words. Please, do everyone a favor and *grow up*!
Posted by: nathan | May 22, 2006 7:34:37 AM
It is important to realize that when the first sewer fees/taxes were assessed to property owners in Portland, the charge was fifty cents a month. I believe this tax was initiated in the 50’s or 60’s. It was billed as a “temporary” tax. There is a lesson here; beware of politicians calling any tax or fee as “temporary”.
If the sewer tax was just for maintenance and improvements to existing infrastructure, it could be deemed relevant. However, ratepayers also contribute and pay for increased load created by new and expanding property development. It is this need for increased capacity that Homer and his development buddies should be funding and paying for to the tune of 100% of the costs. Ratepayers should not be subsidizing the needs of big development. Development impact fees must be adjusted to cover all the increased sewer capacity costs needed to accomodate new, increased and high density development.
Currently Portland property owners also pay the storm water run off rain tax. This is where the extortion part comes in. When the majority of homes were built in Portland, city codes required that downspouts be connected to the sewer system. Now the City wants them disconnected. However, many properties for whatever reason can not accommodate this additional water run off without expensive and or major modifications. To meet the current codes, disconnected downspouts must be extended six feet from the structure if the house has a basement. Often times older homes have basements that leak or have some water seepage. Even with a six foot extension, the additional water going into the ground could cause increased structural damage. Furthermore, any insurance company will tell you a six foot pipe extending out from a structure is a liability that could cause injury if somebody tripped over it. A homeowner’s insurance policy could be revoked over this issue. As I recall, the rainwater tax was initiated shortly after voters passed measure five. I think the word “extortion” is appropriate when describing the City’s sewer charges and policies.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 22, 2006 10:27:50 AM
Terry, I agree that the developers are getting a freebie if they're not expected to foot the bill on expansion of infrastructure. I really don't know if that's something they pay for or not, though I suspect it's something the City does provide as an incentive to go forward with construction. I don't really have anything constructive to say about that, as it's a topic that's been handled in the blogosphere with far more insight than I could provide.
I'm not tracking with you on the extortion bit, though. Your thesis seems to be that because the City charges a stormwater runoff tax to all citizens while ALSO requiring downspouts to be disconnected, than we have a case of extortion.
First, the City isn't forcing anybody to disconnect their downspouts. The Downspout Disconnection Program (DDP) is voluntary and, in fact, it's well known that disconnection does not work in many areas of Portland, such as much of the inner Eastside (poorly infiltrating soils) and most of the Westside (topography that lends itself to slides and washing out downstream neighbors). I simply mention this because your statement that follows implies (at least I took it this way) the City is requiring disconnection, and this is simply not so: "Now the City wants them disconnected."
Second, the only way I can figure you are tying the extortion of Portland's ratepayers to the DDP is that you think those people who are paying the stormwater tax AND have disconnected their downspouts are being taxed unfairly. But unless the property owner can prove that NONE of the precipitation that falls on their property is entering the system, I disagree with you. Even if the downspouts are disconnected, there inevitably is still runoff from vegetated areas, let alone the fact that on a typical property there is additional impervious area draining to the system (i.e. driveway, front walkway, etc.). In other words, a property owner with a disconnected downspout is NOT completely removing their footprint from the stormwater system, a system that requires maintenance and upgrades (I'm talking normal stuff here, not due to large developments). They use the system, they get charged for it. There IS NO EXTORTION.
Now, I concede that there are differing levels of stormwater runoff contribution from property to property. The Stormwater Discount Program that's soon to rollout hopefully will help alleviate that problem, though no one will get a 100% discount. This is fine by me, since we’re residents of a city. Frankly, we all use the system to some degree – we do live in a city, after all. Even if our homes were 100% disconnected, it's doubtful that our places of work, congregation, socialization, and entertainment are. So I conclude that we all reap benefits from the stormwater system, and that your use of the word ‘extortion’ is loose and inaccurate.
Posted by: Stephen | May 24, 2006 12:20:43 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Who are the biggest contractors on this project?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | May 15, 2006 5:02:04 PM