Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Filtration Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East County residents press Multnomah County for answers on Portland Water Bureau filtration plant impacts
Summary
Several East Multnomah County residents and local leaders told the board the Portland Water Bureau filtration plant construction is damaging roads, creating safety concerns, and may have been approved without adequate land-use oversight; they asked the county to clarify which agency monitors and enforces project conditions.
Residents of East Multnomah County and local officials told the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners that construction of the new Portland Water Bureau filtration plant has harmed quality of life, damaged rural roads and raised safety concerns for neighbors.
Suzanne Quarter of East County said her community is “devastated” by construction traffic and that repeated emails to the previous commissioner produced few responses. She asked the board who is monitoring the land‑use conditions imposed on the project and where residents should report violations.
Chris Quarter, a homeowner and former teacher, described truck traffic and early-morning work that he said began before allowed hours. “Can you protect us? That’s not a rhetorical question,” he told the board, asking whether new commissioners will represent the interests of rural residents.
Chris Hawes, who identified himself as a longtime resident and said he was speaking not in his capacity with local fire or water boards, cited Oregon’s land-use framework and argued the project may have been allowed incorrectly. Hawes said publicly that large parts of the project appear to have been placed on land that should have remained in exclusive farm use without adequate findings; he warned the county the construction is damaging roads in nearby Clackamas County and said he plans to raise those issues with Clackamas County officials.
County staff acknowledged the public comments and committed to follow up; Chair Jessica Vega Pederson directed staff to have a county staffer (Steph) follow up with the speakers.
The public testimony requested two specific outcomes: clarity on which county or city office enforces the land‑use conditions tied to the filtration plant, and clearer communication channels so residents can report and document violations. The board did not take immediate action on the project during the meeting; speakers said they will continue to pursue complaints and oversight through county and neighboring-county channels.
