by Dan Meek
5/3/2014

This is also posted at http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/05/portland_public_water_district_8.html.

I just received a very misleading big postcard from the "yes" campaign on this measure. Nearly every statement in the postcard has already been refuted in my op-ed at http://tinyurl.com/meek-oped-water or is otherwise untrue or misleading.

The postcard shows a desert and says "Phoenix has lower water rates than Portland." First, a comparison of "water rates" alone leaves out the elements that comprise most of the "water" bills, which are charges for sewer and stormwater disposal. Second, there are many cities with lower water rates than Portland and many cities with higher water + disposal rates, including just on the west coast (for typical residential usage levels): Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, and Oakland. See Black & Veatch, 50 Largest Cities Water/Wastewater Rate Survey (2012/2013).

But if you want to look at just water rates, the same survey shows that Portland has lower commercial water rates than even Phoenix, whether the customer is using 100,000 gallons or 10 million gallons per month.

The postcard claims that Portland "water rates have risen 161% since 2000." There is no source cited for this, and I can locate nothing that supports it apart from a USA Today article in September 2012, which also states that water rates during that period have risen in San Francisco by 211% and San Diego by 141%. The article itself states: "Local water costs vary widely because of geography, climate, population, a water company's borrowing costs and other factors. That makes it virtually impossible to compare one city's water costs to another's."

Also, USA Today used as assumed level of residential water use that is about double the average household use in Portland.

The 2013 Black & Veatch survey shows that since 2000 the average residential bill for water in America's 50 largest cities has increased by 90%; for sewers has increased by 94% -- almost exactly the same increases in Portland during that period.

The postcard then claims, "An independent lawsuit has identified $127 million in questionable water and sewer spending." The lawsuit was anything but "independent." It was brought by the sister of Kent Craford, the chief petitioner for Measure 26-156 and lobbyist for the big water users. Another plaintiff is "Citizens for Water Accountability, Trust and Reform," which is a nonprofit corporation that refuses to disclose any of its donors. The attorney representing Ms Craford and the group is John DiLorenzo, who drafted the measure along with his partners at the Davis, Wright law firm.

And most of the $127 million was for acquisition of forested land and other watershed protection measures. After 3 years of litigation, no court has agreed with Ms Craford, except for two items:

1. the $547,000 assessed on the water and sewer systems for 6 years of public funding of elections (an assessment made upon all City bureaus; the water and sewer bureaus had no choice in the matter), and
    
2. the $618,000 spent for building and maintaining public lavatories (even though they reduce pollution by capturing into sewers the human waste that would otherwise end up on the streets and then in the rivers).

So no court has found any support for 99% of the $127 million in alleged waste.  And I believe that both of the above expenditures were within the property authority of the bureaus.

The postcard claims that Measure 26-156 will "mandate independent financial audits, prohibit cronyism and conflicts of interest." All three are untrue. Unlike the rest of Portland government, the new Board would not be subject to audits by the independently-elected Portland City Auditor. Instead, the Board would choose its own auditors. Remember how well that system worked for Enron investors.

What supporters call "conflict of interest rules" to stop "cronyism" are actually the opposite. The measure contains no limits on corporate money for Board campaigns, but the measure bans nearly anyone with Portland water or sewer system experience from running, including (1) volunteers who have served on the unpaid advisory committees that evaluate Portland's water and sewer operations and (2) anyone who has worked for the City of Portland or on the water or sewer systems during the past 6 years. The only disclosure requirements specifically exempt the financial interests of water/sewer users.

The other side of the postcard makes the same claims, but adds "Prohibits privatization and co-mingling our water with inferior sources such as the Willamette River." These are entirely made-up concerns; no Portland official is suggesting any privatization or any use of The Willamette River water. And the measure does not prohibit either of those bad things, anyway. It allows the new Board to sell water and sewer assets, without restriction. The measure has a vague statement that "This district may not regionalize or privatize water or sewer service," but neither of those two terms is defined. The judge who rewrote the ballot title concluded that the measure in no way defines "regionalize" or "privatize" and that there is "no recognizable public debate or issue about them." She actually compared those prohibitions to a provision that "the District would make the area safe from tigers." Sounds good but actually means nothing.

And the measure does allow commingling drinking water from Bull Run with Willamette River water in cases of emergency or "to comply with an intergovernmental agreement entered into before July 1, 2013."

The postcard also claims that Measure 26-156 "places Bull Run watershed protections in the City Charter." The only such "protections" are a prohibition on the new district adopting "regulations for the Bull Run Watershed that are less protective or enhancing of water quality that the regulations in place on July 1, 2013." The judge who rewrote the ballot title noted that the term "protective" is not defined. So all it does, at best, is preserve the status quo--and only for areas within the Bull Run Watershed and not the rest of the system.

Proponents should be able to make a case for their measure without resorting to untrue or misleading statements.