List date(s) this work was published or aired.
5-Mar-11
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The story demonstrated that the risk from cryptosporidium are minimal in Portland’s water system, though EPA rules were forcing Portland to spend up to $500 million to combat it.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Extensive research, including the record behind the EPA’s original cryptosporidium decision, records requests with the city of Portland, records of federal rule committees, numerous scientific studies.
Explain types of human sources used.
Talked with experts in the infectious diseases field, researchers on both sides of cryptosporidium issue, water officials from Portland, Rochester and New York City.
Results:
Oregon’s health department, which the EPA gave authority over the issue, decided late last year not to require Portland to meet the cryptosporidium standard when it comes to its Bull Run reservoirs. Can’t say for sure, but believe the story had an impact on that decision by clearly laying a strong case months beforehand for Portland to be exempted.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
no
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Local environmental issues are fascinating opportunities for coverage.