Portland’s water and sewer bureaus have an interesting year ahead of them.
Alleged illegal use of ratepayer funds, controversial expenses on projects seemingly beyond the scope of the bureau’s mission, along with questionable public recourse on rate decisions, have residents crying foul of the current system that charges one of the highest combined sewer and water bills in the nation.
So it’s no wonder Portlanders have taken to finding a better alternative to managing our water.
Unfortunately, we haven’t gotten there yet.
The movement to create a Portland Public Water District has turned in more than 50,000 signatures — out of a required 30,000 — to get on the ballot in May. The measure would create a new, independent bureaucracy, the Portland Public Water District, to take control of the city’s water and sewer operations away from City Council.
Part of the pitch is that the seven-member, all-volunteer board will be elected by zones, not at-large like City Council, and in the absence of other political influences, will be more accountable to the public. But the parameters almost guarantee special interests will run, including representatives from the corporate interests who have the time and resources — and lack of water bureau experience — to assume the volunteer position. The elections would also be off-year races, which attract a small fraction of attention and eligible voters to the polls.
But even more so than the concept of an independent board, it is the high rates that are the crux of the pitch, and without making promises, so is the suggestion that reining in control will reverse the trend and lower costs to ratepayers. Perhaps, but the bulk of those rate increases can be traced directly to $1.8 billion for the federally mandated “big pipe,” plus hundreds of millions in other major projects to upgrade the city’s aging water and sewer system in tune with the region’s environmental sensibilities. The controversial spending on frivolous projects, however egregious, isn’t the driver here.
Also, within the utilities’ costs are programs for low-income ratepayers to help preserve their water service during tough times, and for environmental projects that pay it forward by keeping our natural resources among the best in the world. No environmental group has come forward supporting this initiative. This initiative is propped up by corporate and industrial interests, not the general populous — low-income or otherwise.
Yes, there are problems now, but this isn’t the solution. Nonetheless, this initiative can have a major impact in spurring on more responsive and responsible utility oversight, and some steps have been taken in that direction. We can improve the system from the inside out, with transparency and accountability under a City Council responsible for the full complexity of the city’s resources, environment and social needs.
