Residents urge Multnomah County commissioners to scrutinize Portland Water Bureau filtration project near Oxbow

Several residents who live near the Portland Water Bureau filtration project in the county’s eastern reaches told Multnomah County commissioners on April 2 that they have not received adequate notice about environmental impacts, road damage and project activity during a remand of the project’s staff report.

Suzanne Quarter told the board she and neighbors want commissioners to “really engage yourself with what's going on” and asked the county to ensure the Department of Land Use produces an accurate staff report addressing natural‑resource concerns. “We don't have any other representation, so you're it,” Quarter said during the meeting’s public comment period.

Laura Beving, who said she lives on Oxbow Parkway adjacent to the project, described extensive road damage and ongoing construction noise. “Cottrell is a mess. Dodge Park is a mess all the way down to Orient,” Beving said. She said the Water Bureau had agreed to fix roads “within a half mile” of the site but that damage stretches further and “it shouldn't be on the backs of the taxpayers or the rate payers.”

Quarter and Beving also raised natural‑resource concerns. Quarter said the earlier staff process failed to protect resources and that the project had proceeded “without all the permits in place.” Beving said dirty water continues to be pumped into Johnson Creek, which she described as an “important salmonoid breeding spot.”

Commissioners did not take action on the project during the meeting. County staff have previously noted the project was remanded to the county’s land‑use review process; Denise Pena, director of the Department of Community Justice, and other presenters at the meeting addressed unrelated grant items. The speakers asked the board to press county land‑use staff and the Water Bureau for clearer communication and for any future staff reports to accurately address natural‑resource and public‑safety questions raised by the community.

The comments combined three recurring themes from residents: unclear or infrequent communication from the Water Bureau and county staff; the extent of road damage beyond the area the Water Bureau said it would repair; and unresolved questions about environmental impacts to Johnson Creek and surrounding natural resources.

Ending: Commissioners did not respond with a schedule or a specific follow‑up at the meeting. Residents asked the board to monitor forthcoming staff reports and to ensure the county enforces land‑use and environmental protections during the remand process.