Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/15/1994WATER BOARD MINUTES April 15, 1994 3:00 - 5:15 P.M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Marylou Smith, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, John Bartholow, Paul Clopper, Tim Dow, Dave Stewart Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, John Nelson, Andy Pineda, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier Guests Eric Wilkinson, General Manager, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent Dave Frick, Howard Goldman, Terry Podmore (sabbatical) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Tim Dow moved, and Ray Herrmann seconded the motion, that the minutes of February 18, 1994 be approved as distributed. The Board voted unanimous approval. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Neil Grigg introduced Eric Wilkinson, the new General Manager of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Water Board members and staff introduced themselves. Mr. Wilkinson came to give a brief update on District activities and answer questions from Board members. Mr. Wilkinson provided a handout with streamflow, precipitation, reservoir storage and snowpack data as of April 12th. On the back page was a summary of weather data from the District's 10 weather stations which shows the variations in the weather patterns in that area. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 2 He began by saying that the District set a 60% quota this year based on the information from the water supply forecasts. "Our streamflow forecasts are showing about an 86% of average streamflow runoff forecast for the District as a whole," he said. The Poudre is around 70% which makes it one of the more deficient ones. Streamflow, plus the amount of carryover from the 1993-94 season (amounting to about 88,000 Ac-ft), in addition to the water in local storage, adds up to about 106% of average. If typical or normal weather patterns continue, the District thinks that at the end of this year, both the CBT project and local storage will remain above normal. He went on to give an update on some of the key issues at the District. The major effort currently is the southern water supply project which consists of construction on a 32 mile pipeline that runs from Carter Lake to Broomfield, serving several entities along the way. They are also in the process of designing connector lines to Lafayette and Superior, extending as well to Fort Lupton as an initial step, and then to Fort Morgan. Soon the District will select one of the proposals submitted for design of those lines. The discharge at Carter will be a total of 96 CFS. The 32-mile pipeline will ultimately serve 13 entities. Those 13 entities are paying for the construction, so there is no "out of pocket" expense, or staff time expense to the District itself. In February of this year, the District took on a another water conservation program when the Board approved the initiation of a landscape water management program. "We felt we needed to address, not only our agriculture sector, but also our urban sector in terms of education and conservation measures that we are trying to promote as part of the Conservancy Act and our obligations under the Reclamation Act." What the District is proposing is cooperation with large area turf growers such as municipalities, schools, parks and golf courses to initiate a program of, not only water, but fertilization management. The program will follow the same basic guidelines as the District's irrigation management service. The District will schedule irrigations based on weather conditions from their weather station network as they have with agriculture applications. They will take clippings of the turf to determine fertilization levels and make recommendations. They have looked at existing data and studies and it appears that along the front range, about half the water that is used by municipalities is used for landscape application. "We feel that as much as 25 % of that water can be saved through this program," he said. He added that they have seen great strides in the agricultural sector since 1981 when they initiated their irrigation management service, and they hope that the same will be true for the landscape water management program. Mr. Wilkinson also briefed the Board on the on -going transfer study for the CBT project. It was initiated late last summer based on speeches that were made by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt as well as the Bureau commissioner, and Vice President Gore regarding the "re -invention of government" in the attempt to control budgets, manpower, etc. He pointed out that CBT is a Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 3 multi -purpose project because it provides water supply and power, "so we're a little different from what was insinuated in some of those speeches. We felt it was a good opportunity to look at transfers that range from transfer of O&M responsibilities from project facilities to transfer of title." In October/November of 1993 the District formed a study team comprised of a number of qualified people including former BOR directors, a Fish & Wildlife representative, etc., to look at possibilities for transfer of various functions related to the CBT project from the federal government to the District. As a result of those studies, and as a product of that team effort the following alternatives emerged: 1) No action (maintaining the status quo) 2) Transfer of title of the project to the District 3) Transfer of joint works (Joint works are those facilities within the project that are necessary for both power production and water conveyance.) He explained that there are also single purpose power facilities and single purpose water facilities. 4) Transfer of remaining operation and maintenance responsibilities on the remaining joint works which includes Pole Hill Canal, possibly the outlet at Adams Tunnel, and some of the foothills conduits extending from Olympus to Pole Hill Reservoir. 5) Entire transfer of O&M responsibilities not only for the joint works, but for the single purpose power facilities. That has two options: (1) District would take over O&M responsibilities; (2) Form a power consortium (a user group such as a cooperative effort between Tri-state, PRPA and others) where they would take over the O&M responsibility of the power features, and the District would take over the water features, and operate it jointly. Under the direction of their board, the District is investigating the transfers in a phased study with in-house personnel. The first meeting with the Bureau was Thursday, April 13th. "As it progresses we have various so called off ramps in the process." If it appears that the liabilities or risks associated with the transfer would be such that it would be detrimental to the District, "we take an off ramp." He explained that the District is somewhat different from other reclamation projects because in the repayment contract, the District is guaranteed the perpetual right to the use of the water yielded from the Big T project. Other projects have a contract that is based on a term of years and renewable under the same or varying terms at the end of that time. The District will be pursuing their options slowly and diligently to a point where they either offer a formal proposal, or they take "off ramps" depending upon the feed -back from the Bureau, the Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 4 power using communities, and the environmental groups, etc. to try to get a consensus of support or opposition. The District has recently become involved in the Front Range Water Forum. What they hope to see emerge from this involvement is the Northern area of Colorado working together to try to define what their intent is with regard to forum issues. The forum is looking at a wide range of alternatives which appear to be geographically based. "What we would advocate in the northern group from Boulder north, is the kinds of alternatives we would have to offer, if any, to the Denver/metro area." For example, alternatives for metro water supply such as interruptable supplies for the agricultural sector, drought insurance, inter -governmental leases, etc. The District also would like to see the northern area decide what they want to do with their existing water supply; e.g. ways to protect it for future growth. He cited examples of problems with western slope water and how they have given the state notice that it's going to be difficult to get water out of their basins. When you consider the western slope factors and the short distance from northern Colorado to the metro area, and the success of the southern project in terms of cost and efficiency, other Denver entities are also going to take notice. With regard to these factors, the District would like the northern area to decide what they want the future of their water supply to be, and then take steps to try to build a consensus. Mr. Wilkinson continued by saying that the District was told yesterday in a meeting with the Bureau that the CBT project by the end of next week will probably be notified that it will be under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The reason is that the Fish & Wildlife Service has designated a critical habitat for four endangered species for the Colorado River. That designation becomes final on April 20, 1994. In addition, since the last Section 7 was done on the CBT project in 1981, there has been a listing of an additional endangered species, the razorback sucker. The BOR believes they are legally obligated under the Endangered Species Act, to initiate the Section 7 consultation on all federal projects within the Colorado Basin that will affect critical habitat. He said the District "is very dismayed" by that decision, but what they are hoping is that they will "get a lot of mileage" out of the recovery program that has been initiated on the Colorado River. They are hoping that that recovery program will be legitimized and recognized by the environmental community and the federal agencies, and will act as a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for the Section 7 consultation. Altered operations on the CBT project obviously will result in a reduction in yield because "we are maximizing the yield right now." The only water that we bypass is to meet downstream water rights and fish flows as dictated in the 1961 agreement with the federal government. "We're going to have to monitor this closely, and it will be a drain on our resources, but we'll do the best we can to have it come out favorably," he concluded. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 5 With regard to the turf management program, Paul Clopper was curious to know if there have been examples of problem areas or hot spots in the irrigation return flows in terms of fertilizer use. "No," Mr. Wilkinson replied. The District is initiating the program in the same frame of mind as some of the ongoing programs and studies in the irrigation management service. He related that the District has two demonstration farms to study irrigation and fertilization practices in order to develop best management practices. "We are now trying to branch into that in the turf management area because under the Clean Water Act, sooner or later, that type of thing may evolve or be required; particularly with large operators like golf courses, etc," he added. "This seems to be a proactive approach rather than reactive," Mr. Clopper observed. Marylou Smith wanted to "applaud the District" for leaning in the direction of working on landscape irrigation. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that the District will be dividing the substantial front lawn at its Headquarters into at least 5 areas, each about the size of a residential lawn for demonstration purposes. Different management practices will be established with each of those to try to economically rehabilitate an existing lawn into a more water conserving lawn. Tom Brown asked what the District sees as the potential benefits of the possible transfer agreements. "If we can effectuate them without harm and without a lost yield, there is a monetary savings through efficiency both to the federal government and the District," Mr. Wilkinson responded. He cited a number of examples where processes, operations and procedures could be more efficient; in one area, for example, he said $500,000 could be saved. He also sees a potential benefit in better control and efficiency of the maintenance system. John Bartholow asked what is it exactly that expires in 2002; is that the contract with the Bureau? "In my opinion, nothing expires. In 2002 our repayment obligation will have been met with the federal government," Mr. Wilkinson replied. "We are obligated to pay back $25 million to the government for the water supply side of the project." The contract with the Bureau will extend beyond that for everything else. "The contract assures us of the perpetual right to use the water," he emphasized, "and that's basically what we (we being the constituency of the NCWCD) are purchasing with the $25 million." Neil Grigg asked if there is an organization in place that provides a forum for how we're going to approach and reach consensus on water issues in Northern Colorado. "There's the Front Range Water Forum. There's the forum committee itself and also the technical committee," Mr. Wilkinson answered. He understands that Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland applied to the Governor for spots on the technical committee. Mike Smith said that Mayor Azari of Fort Collins was invited to be on the policy committee. Dr. Grigg thinks that it's one thing to talk about the issues as a large group and another to approach it from a Northern Colorado perspective. He recalled that a few years ago a group from the northern area convened to discuss various issues that related to how "we were going to get our act together in Northern Colorado to protect our future water." One aspect that was Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 6 discussed was a water plan, and at that time he had suggested that a South Platte River study might show how we could better manage our water. "We came to the conclusion that we would see what comes up." Dr. Grigg continued by saying that now it may be appropriate to have some kind of forum of Northern Colorado people where we could talk about what our position for the region should be, in addition to what is being discussed in the Front Range Forum. Mr. Wilkinson responded that there are representatives from Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Greeley and the NCWCD on the technical committee. He contends that it's impractical for everyone to do their own forum. "A wide base of participation is helpful," he said. Dr. Grigg concluded that it's going to basically fall on the representatives from Northern Colorado on the Front Range Forum committees to get together and take a position on the policy issues. "I don't know how it will be worked out, but I see the need for it," he stressed. He pointed out that the Water Supply Committee from the Water Board has engaged in various strategies and policies on water supply issues. "Just speaking for myself, I see a need for some kind of unified policy approach," he stated. "We meet from time to time with the Water Boards from Greeley and Loveland, and we talk in general about issues, but we aren't backed up with systematic thinking about what the policy ought to be. We all feel that Northern Colorado could be increasingly under the gun. Mr. Wilkinson agreed that it would be nice if there were some continuity. Dr. Grigg contends that we just can't say, "let's keep our water in Northern Colorado. We've got to get to some specific proposals." "On the technical side you can get technical people together and reach consensus on a lot of things, but when it comes to policy and politics you're not going anywhere, because you can get water from here to Denver if you want to," Mike Smith pointed out. President Grigg observed that the Board has already spent over a half hour on this subject, and "we've just scratched the surface." He suggested that it might be useful to take a half day sometime where a technical group could make a presentation to a group similar to this as to what the issues and options are. There could be discussion and input, and the representatives on the Front Range Forum could go back to the meetings with a better sense of what the issues and options are. He reiterated that it is important for Northern Colorado water interests to get together to make some policy decisions for the future. Dr. Grigg thanked Eric Wilkinson for taking the time from his demanding schedule at the District to brief the Water Board and staff, and respond to questions. The update and the dialogue with the Water Board has been very valuable, he said. Sheep Creek Reservoir Water Board members received a summary of the Sheep Creek Reservoir issue in their packets. The City of Fort Collins owns water rights associated with the old Sheep Creek Reservoir site Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 7 which is located in the Roosevelt National Forest. At issue is whether the City should continue to spend the resources necessary to maintain and protect these water rights in anticipation of the possible rehabilitation of the reservoir. Dennis Bode indicated on the map attached to the summary the location of the site. According to old records, the dam was originally constructed in the early 1900s by Eda Zimmerman to a capacity of 530 acre feet. She was granted a federal right-of-way in 1914 from the U.S. Land Office. The structure was washed out and repaired several times in the 1920s. Apparently there was little activity from about 1930 to the early 1950s. At that time the federal government decided they wanted the property back, and they were successful in getting the heirs of Eda Zimmerman to sign relinquishment forms in December of 1955. About that time the water rights associated with the reservoir were transferred to the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Bode said that staff has searched for documents and deeds to determine the method of transfer, but none have been found. Since the 1950s Fort Collins hasn't done anything other than visit the site a few times, and in the 1970s file an application for various exchanges of Sheep Creek Reservoir water that could be implemented if the dam and reservoir were to be rehabilitated. The City was successful in getting a conditional decree. With that decree came the requirement to show diligence for the development of the decree. Mr. Bode related that the City is at a point where it makes sense to either go forward or drop the conditional water right. The original decree was for 532 Ac-ft. "One of the reasons that we are bringing this issue to the Water Board now is that the decree is up for diligence in June of 1994," he said. In terms of the absolute storage right, the state reviews existing rights every few years, and those not showing use for long periods are listed as potentially abandoned. Diligence towards conditional rights must be shown every six years, and if not diligent, the rights can be denied. Mr. Bode said the City has not pursued the rehabilitation of the reservoir and development of the water rights for various reasons. In terms of the practicality of moving forward with the project, it appears to staff that there are a number of obstacles: First there would be the expense of re- building the reservoir and obtaining the necessary permits. Since the site is on U.S. Forest Land, a special use permit would be required. In addition it is likely that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required with all the related studies and issues. The site is adjacent to the Comanche Peak Wilderness Area and there are currently no roads into the site. Sheep Creek is a home for greenback cutthroat trout, and the site appears to be an environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, the Colorado Water Conservation Board has instream flow rights above and below the site. "I think for the small amount of storage available, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of effort Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 8 and money to pursue that particular project," Mr. Bode stated. "How much would it cost?" Dave Stewart asked. "I think the real cost would be in getting the permits and EI Statements," Mr. Bode replied. Mr. Stewart asked if there was any chance of moving those rights around. Mr. Bode said that the Utility's legal counsel has looked at that question. His opinion was that it would be very difficult to move it simply because there has been no historical water use on that site for probably 60 years. "We would also have to change it to municipal use; it would be very difficult to transfer it to another site." Paul Clopper wanted to know what the minimum effort would be to establish diligence at this time. Mr. Bode said that at one time it was easier to do the minimal required. It's far more difficult now to establish diligence. Mr. Stewart persisted by saying that storage there is over 500 AC-ft. "I don't know what its value is, but if you buy that much storage water, it's less than what we can buy CBT water for. It's valuable because it is a 1904 water right, a fairly senior storage right." "It's probably not very senior," Mr. Bode responded. Mr. Stewart said, "if we end up spending $10,000 over the next 6 years to protect it, I think that's money well spent." Mr. Clopper reiterated: "How much would it take to keep it in a holding pattern?" Mr. Bode said he thinks it's a question of at what point on these things do you keep hanging on." For a number of years the Utility has tried to carry on with this which tends to divert staff's attention from other things. "Let's look at it a different way," Mr. Stewart continued. "If Thornton or Denver is looking at Northern Colorado as a water source, this might be a trade-off. It's worth something to us to give to Thornton, for example, and say, 'you can protect it.'" He thinks we are cutting ourselves short if we just say it's a hassle; let's not do it. Mr. Bode acknowledged that the Water Supply Committee has had discussions about these same issues. Tim Dow asked where the Wooster Reservoir is compared to this. "This is a different Sheep Creek," Mr. Bode replied. Wooster Reservoir is up north on the Sheep Creek that's coming into the North Fork of the Poudre. This is a smaller Sheep Creek that's near Sleeping Elephant Mountain. Mr. Dow asked if it would be possible to convert the storage decree into a river decree and carry it down that way. "No, I don't think so," Mr. Bode answered, "primarily because of the non-use of that reservoir for 60 years or more. I don't think we could get that kind of a transfer." Ray Herrmann asked if we would still have to develop it in place. Would it cost the same amount of money if we didn't use the reservoir? Mr. Bode explained that the Committee's major conclusion was that you probably can't move it and get anything out of it, so that means you would have to look at developing it at that site. "If it's abandoned, would the reservoir have to be moved?" Mr. Dow asked. Mr. Bode explained that there isn't much there. "I think Mother Nature has pretty much restored it to its Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 9 original condition. It wasn't very large to begin with. There probably wouldn't be a need to do anything there," he concluded. John Bartholow asked what the original purpose of the water was. Mr. Bode said the purpose for the water wasn't clearly defined. There was a fishing resort up there at one time. For a few years they apparently rented water to a couple of irrigation companies. "That was one of the problems in establishing the rights that could be transferred," Tom Brown related. To do that you would have to transfer it from one use to another, and it's difficult to know what the use of it was. Dr. Grigg asked for a motion. Mr. Stewart said he didn't think he had an answer to his question about what it would take to get another six years out of it. "I'm not sure there is an answer," Mr. Bode asserted. Mr. Brown asked what is the minimum amount you think might work? "If it's all paper work, I can't see just giving it away," Mr. Stewart insisted. Marylou Smith's question was: "How much money would it take to restore it to a condition where we could actually get something out of it? I assume that's a lot of money and that if we were to apply any sort of an analysis to the amount of water we would get from it over any period of years, it would never come close to what it would take for us to restore it." For that type of site and for that small quantity of water, it wouldn't be worth what it would take, when we have other more productive options we can pursue at less cost, Mr. Bode replied. Mr. Bode doesn't think you can get a very good cost estimate until additional engineering work is performed. Mr. Clopper asked if we would need a permit to gather more site specific data. Mike Smith said that you can walk around the site and take pictures or do surveying, etc., but if you wanted to drill holes, or do anything more substantial, a permit would probably be required. Mr. Clopper referred to the Rockwell Reservoir site experience. Perhaps a scaled -down version of that exercise would be money well spent. He contends that we are assuming at this point that "we are going to be wise after the event, and I don't know if that assumption is correct. What may be very expensive water today may be a bargain in 15 years. Are we that wise today to make that decision?" What is the watershed up there? "I think the watershed is about 14 square miles," Mr. Bode replied. Mr. Clopper pointed out that Dave Stewart brings up an additional benefit as a negotiation card that could be played at some point down the line. Mr. Stewart agreed. "We are in negotiations now with the Forest Service on instream flows. I think we're giving away something that we don't need to give away quite yet," he stressed. If staff had provided numbers that said this is going to cost us $50,000 an acre foot to develop, "it's an easy call. On the other hand if you came back and said it's going to cost us $3,000/AF, I'd say wait a second; we don't know what water's going to do; especially with the pressures from the Denver area." Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Clopper added that at this time if we're saying for $10-12,000 we could extend this by demonstrating diligence, it would be worth it. Dr. Grigg said that one partial answer to the question might be the sequence of steps you might take if you did proceed with it. You probably need additional information regarding the site, Mr. Bode began. Would we have to let out a , contract for that or could we do it in house? Dr. Grigg asked. At this time of year it would be difficult to do any field work because of the snow. "If the FS owned this water right, what would they have to do?" Dave Stewart wanted to know. "If they were going to develop it, they would have to do an EIS," Ray Herrmann thinks. Mr. Stewart's point is that this could be a value to somebody besides ourselves. Mr. Brown emphasized that it's of value if it's worth developing. There are two values: one is you develop a reservoir there, and the other you transfer the right to some place else. Mr. Stewart pointed it out that you wouldn't even have to transfer it. "If the FS buys it for instream flows and builds it themselves, and they don't have to go through the exhaustive permitting process, than it's lots less expensive for them than for us." Mr. Brown can't see the FS putting a dam up there. Dr. Grigg asked if you were going to collect data on the site, would you have to make a filing somewhere or would you wait until they contacted us to show diligence? "You would have to make a filing to show what you have done to develop the project. "So we would have to furnish some engineering data to them?" Dr. Grigg clarified. "Do you have any sense of how much that kind of activity would cost us?" he added. "I think gathering information like that could cost us about $15-20,000," Mike Smith estimated. Mr. Brown explained that when the Water Supply Committee began talking about this a few months ago, they essentially began with the attitude that Dave Stewart and Paul Clopper have. "We can't give this up, we said. Even if we don't develop it, it may have value for future negotiations etc., we thought." Then the Committee stepped back to try to determine if there was something worth protecting. It seemed, barring something like the FS building something up there, (an idea we never considered) that developing this site was going to be much more expensive than other options. We began to focus on transferring this right some place more useful, and we were relying pretty much on the opinion of special legal counsel who saw it as a very unlikely endeavor. "We ended up thinking that we really don't have much here, and to continue to protect it at some expense, as we have been in the past, wasn't very wise; but we definitely felt uneasy about giving up an apparent water right. Each time we looked at the value of what we really had, we didn't come up with anything," he concluded. "Do we need to make the decision now, or can we just wait?" Dr. Grigg wondered. The diligence is coming up in June, so we have to make some kind of decision, Mr. Brown replied. Mr. Herrmann asked if this has any benefit in the negotiations with the FS, and if there is a benefit there, that would be a way to look at it. It would be 500 Ac-ft of whatever the minimum flows the government might require. "I think the real question is the record of historical use," Mr. Smith said. "That could really stack up against you. And you are going to decrease the Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 11 yield of the project with Section 7 because of the depletions. There will be definite bypass issues with the FS. Getting a permit is another issue. It's not something we want to recommend spending more money on. We still have Halligan, and Rockwell is still alive. Rockwell is more solid than this is by a long shot, and it's not very solid. Mr. Smith acknowledged that staff struggled with this too. You hate to give up something that may have some value, but "we're having a hard time finding the value." When staff considered the possibility of trading it to the Forest Service, they were not convinced that it has much value either. For one thing there are already instream flows on the creek by the Water Conservation Board. The yield might also be affected. According to the summary, staff recommends that the Water Board make a recommendation to City council that the City no longer pursue the protection of the water rights associated with Sheep Creek Reservoir. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend to City Council that the City no longer pursue the protection of the water rights associated with Sheep Creek Reservoir. He asked staff to check with the attorneys again to see if there might be a value to the FS in terms of the flow rights. However, the latter was not part of the motion. MaryLou Smith seconded the motion. Paul Clopper did not support the motion for reasons stated earlier. "What has been presented here is not solid enough in my mind to warrant abandoning the protection of the water right," he emphasized. Dave Stewart also did not support the motion for reasons stated earlier. Tim Dow had some of the same reservations that Dave Stewart and Paul Clopper brought up, but he stated that his concerns have been satisfactorily answered. Neil Grigg called for the question. The motion passed 6 to 2. Cross Connection Control Program Jim Hibbard provided a brief history of the Utility's attempts to establish a Cross Connection Control program. He began by saying that a cross connection is a connection between a consumer's water system and the City's potable water system through which contaminating materials can enter the City's system. The cross connection program is mandated by federal and state law, specifically Article 14 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. In 1991 the City approved funding to begin this program, and late that year a Cross Connection Control Administrator was hired to begin the development of the program. Major parts of the program were developed in 1992 with considerable input from internal City committees and external committees from industry. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 12 In March of 1993 the draft program was presented to the Water Board Engineering Committee, with subsequent Water Board discussions in March and May of that year. Much of the discussion at those meetings related to the implementation of the program and the impact upon our customers. Following those discussions, it was referred again to the Engineering Committee, and the Committee reported back to the Board in June of 1993 with several specific recommendations. Shortly after that discussion, the Utility lost its Cross Connection Control Administrator to the City of Boulder. At the August Board meeting staff addressed a few of the issues and concerns that had been discussed at various meetings; primarily questions centered around the program as it related to residential single family homes, and whether or not dual check valves needed to be installed on all those homes. At that time staff presented information indicating that universal installation of dual check valves could be very costly and "we would not necessarily be recommending that." At the same time, staff felt that the focus of the program should be centered on the higher risk commercial and industrial customers as defined by Colorado guidelines. The program then lay dormant for several months while the Utility searched for a replacement for the Cross Connection Administrator position. In January of 1994 John Nelson was hired. Since that time Mr. Nelson has been reviewing state regulations, the original draft of the proposals we had, going over Water Board minutes, and discussing with staff ways that all points of view could be combined in order to define a program that meets regulations, that is administratively manageable, responsive to Water Board and Engineering Committee discussions, and sensitive to the impact on our customers. John Nelson commended Board members for the considerable time and effort they gave to the draft program. He said that he and staff have reviewed the rules and regulations manual included in Board packets, and updated portions of it. Also included in the packets were the proposed changes to the existing ordinance. Mr. Nelson indicated the primary change was that the proposed Rules and Regulations would have to be approved by the City Council rather than the City Manager. This change enables the City to impose fines if necessary. Mr. Nelson has looked into what the Utility can do with the existing plumbing code. regulations. "We have asked irrigation suppliers and installers to take out permits for irrigation systems which some of them have ignored in the past. We have also asked them to test backflow preventors. " In addition, letters were sent informing them what the City expects them to install on the irrigation systems. Mr. Nelson brought three kinds of backflow preventors: the first was an atmospheric vacuum breaker. He said that this device can't have any control valves downstream from it, "so you would have to have one of these on each zone in the system, which would be more expensive, and it is not testable." The next step up is the pressure vacuum breaker, which is the most Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 13 widely installed device, and it can be tested. The price range is $70-120. These are the two most widely installed devices. The third was a reduced pressure device which is recommended and installed on most commercial systems. It's more expensive and it's testable. Mr. Nelson brought copies of a brochure, designed for the homeowner, called Home Irrigation Systems. Staff distributed these to Builder's Square, Sutherlands, most of the places where a person could purchase irrigation equipment. "We've had good feedback on it," he said. Training sessions have been offered to all suppliers of backflow preventers and irrigation supplies, several of whom have taken advantage of the opportunity. In addition, letters have been mailed to all lawn sprinkler installation and maintenance companies, explaining the installation and testing requirements of the Utility's cross -connection program. Staff submitted an article to the April Utility City News explaining briefly the cross -connection program and how it could affect them if they have a lawn irrigation system. Staff will be sending out a questionnaire to commercial customers concerning their domestic water service. The surveys will be sent to the larger sized service taps first, working down in size as the program progresses. As the surveys are returned, staff will determine which facilities need an on -site survey, provided at no cost to the customer. If a facility is determined to need cross -connection control, staff will work with them to eliminate or protect the cross connection hazard. The cost to the customer will depend on the size and type of backflow preventer required. Mr. Nelson went on to say that at this time the City has 280 facilities connected to our water that have fire sprinkler systems. Most of these have existing backflow preventors, although many do not meet current state regulations, and most are not being tested annually, "so we don't know how many are actually working. The fire department really doesn't care if the water is anything but wet. They have left it up to us to address those fire protection systems," he related. Large commercial and industrial customers have been informed of the proposed regulations and have shown interest in training their maintenance personnel in cross -connection control. Letters were sent to all licensed plumbing and mechanical contractors, explaining the proposed regulations and how the program will affect them. Mr. Nelson has begun working with Building Inspection to review new and remodeled commercial permit applications. In the review process he can identify potentially unprotected cross -connections and make recommendations. Mr. Nelson has spoken with people from the larger entities such as PVH and Hewlett-Packard who already have someone trained in cross -connection control. However, the overriding statement he hears is, "we're not going to do anything until the City makes us." Until the City has a program that is enforceable, we won't know whether or not many existing cross -connection Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 14 devices actually work. Paul Clopper asked if staff is providing the home irrigation system brochures to homebuilders. "One of the first things new homeowners do is either have a system installed or install one themselves," he remarked. Mr. Nelson said that staff has been trying to target areas where people buy the irrigation equipment. He also contacted all the sprinkler installers, and several of them have packets that they give to homeowners who want to install a system themselves. Jim Hibbard pointed out from previous discussions the impact (cost and inconvenience) on homeowners with sprinkler systems who have to have their systems tested annually. In the latest revision there is an option for homeowners who don't want to have their systems tested every year. If they use an atmospheric vacuum breaker (the first device that Mr. Nelson showed), and they put one on each zone of their system, by state regulation that device doesn't have to be tested. He emphasized again that although the program will include residential as a part of the overall picture, staff will be spending the majority of their time and effort on commercial and industrial facilities. "Since we are concentrating on commercial and industrial," how many of those do not have this kind of protection now, especially in the 3" and above taps (those that cost $100,000 to install)?" Dave Stewart asked. The cost of a 10" device is about $10,000 to install, Mr. Nelson replied, and he doesn't think we'll have many of those. He added that the plumbing code has required for several years that these be installed. "We may not find that a lot of those facilities don't have them; what we may find is that a number of them haven't been tested." He also pointed out that there is not a high cost for repairs and maintenance on these devices. Where they are most likely to be installed are in old fire systems which have never had them on, he said. In that case "we're going to have to work on each one as it comes. It will have to be engineered to see if it can handle the restriction in flow. However, new back -flow preventers are coming on the market all the time that have less flow restriction, so we may not have as much of a problem with that." "What if we run into the cases that don't have devices, and it becomes a financial burden; more than $10,000?" Dave Stewart remarked. (He was talking about 12" inside the pit.) Mr. Nelson said they only make a 10". "We won't allow any in pits," he added. Mr. Stewart concluded that if it's more expensive than what we are talking about, he thinks we are going to have to determine what kind of impact we would have on the community. Mr. Hibbard responded that the ones Mr. Stewart is referring to probably would be those like H-P, CSU, and perhaps one or two others of our very largest users. Those would probably have to be worked out on a one-to-one basis. It would depend on the responsiveness of the industry we'd be working with in terms of the kind of system they have. As currently configured, both in state regulations and our situation, we have flexibility for enforcement and "how we go about Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 15 it." In our conversations with those large industries they are prepared for this because it has been in the plumbing code for years. Marylou Smith wanted to know how the City plans to enforce annual testing of back -flow prevention devices on residential irrigation systems. As they are tested in the fall or spring, they will become a part of a data base, Mr. Nelson replied. "Will we have a method of checking to be sure that the firm that's blowing out the system tests it and gives the Utility that paper work?" Ms. Smith asked. "They won't be able to test them unless they are certified, and I have a list of certified testers," Mr. Nelson explained. He acknowledged that staff will not be patrolling every street to check out every sprinkler system. "Once we get a notice from an installer or contractor that they have tested once, it's in our data base and we can send reminder letters," Mr. Hibbard assured the Board. Tim Dow confirmed that the federal and state Clean Drinking Water Act dictates this. "Aren't those voluntary types of standards that they set?" he asked. "It's mandatory," Mr. Nelson replied. Mr. Dow also wondered why a residential situation is deemed high hazard. The irrigation system is deemed high hazard because of the possibility of contamination from insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc. applied to lawns and plants, Mr. Nelson responded. Normally when a sprinkler system is installed, the soil settles where the head is placed, and the water has a tendency to pool in that slight depression. When that head doesn't drop all the way down, and there is a main break or crews are flushing hydrants, suddenly the pressure drops, a syphon effect occurs, and the water is pulled back through, he explained. He added that residential areas are probably the most likely to get that water. Mr. Dow asked how many documented cases there are where this has ever happened, and where anybody has ever been harmed by it. Mr. Nelson has a publication that lists recent incidents. "How many in Fort Collins?" Mr. Dow persisted. Dave Stewart cited the time in the 70s when City Park Lake water was pumped into neighborhood drinking water. There was a cross connection between the sprinkler system and the distribution system, and without a backflow preventer, it was being pumped into the distribution system. "That was the irrigation system at City Park where protection is required," MaryLou Smith stated, "what about examples from residences?" Mr. Dow reiterated: "Why is it deemed a hazard on residences? Are we killing a flea with an elephant gun here?" Mr. Hibbard said he didn't know of any specific residential cases in Fort Collins, but on a nationwide basis there have been plenty of documented cases, including deaths, because of backflow from residential and commercial sprinkler systems. "If you don't have a sprinkler system, your house isn't a high hazard," he stressed. Mr. Nelson pointed out that other regulatory agencies have required and installed these for years; they just haven't been getting permits or getting them tested. In his personal experience about 50% of the devices fail after the first year because of debris left in the pipelines due to the installation. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 16 "What's the cost on a per residence basis?" Tim Dow continued. "I have talked with several installers and people who maintain systems," Mr. Nelson replied, "and it's all the way from no charge (doing it as part of the charge -up) to $10-25 per test. We're not going to try to mandate a certain fee." "Are you going to try to grandfather in the double check back -flow assemblies?" Mr. Dow asked. "Double check is not sufficient protection for an irrigation system," Mr. Nelson replied. Mr. Dow referred to an article in Irrigation Magazine, January, 1994, stating that double check valve assemblies have a good record and there is no documented case that it causes any contamination of the water supply in residences of the U.S. "I think this requirement is an overkill relative to the residential," he insisted. "I'm not quite so sure about commercial, but you're saying that people have to have these things installed. Legally now they're going to have to retrofit with new devices at a cost to them when there is absolutely no evidence that there's any danger. At least we should grandfather in those that already have the double check valves, " Mr. Dow contends. "It doesn't make any sense!" "A lot of things don't make sense, but we have to start somewhere," Mr. Nelson observed. Ben Alexander talked about instances around the U.S. where people have been responsible for contamination getting into the potable water system when stormwater drains into depressions in their yards. "I don't know how much that applies to Colorado or Larimer County," he said. Mr. Dow also pointed out in the article he cited earlier, that the American Backflow Prevention Association's president stated in 1994 that "with a proper testing program, double check backflow prevention devices are adequate protection for lawn sprinklers that do not incorporate fertigation or chemigation, or use reclaimed water." "If allowing the double check valve to remain in the systems becomes an issue, I don't think it will be a big problem as long as they are tested," Mr. Nelson conceded. On the other hand, "I think we should say from this point forward we aren't going to allow them again. For years uninformed inspectors have said those are okay, although it hasn't been common in Colorado to install them on irrigation systems; the reason is they're a low hazard device," he explained. Mr. Hibbard said that should the state change their regulations and begin allowing double checks on high hazard installations, "we would then modify our ordinance to match state regulations." Dr. Grigg asked for clarification on the motions from the Board. "Does it make sense to have one motion for both the ordinances or separate the two?" "Separate," Mr. Nelson replied. The first one has been described as a "housekeeping" change to the existing ordinance. The second actually adopts the Rules and Regulations. MaryLou Smith moved that the Board recommend adoption of the first ordinance which amends the City Code. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. Tom Brown asked for a clarification on Sec. 26-186, (a) which says that "it is unlawful for any person to have a connection between a private Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 17 line carrying well water and a line carrying City water or to make, install, maintain or permit to exist any other cross -connection between the City's or user's potable water system and any pipe, plumbing fixture, tank, receptacle, equipment or other appurtenance on the user's premises unless it is protected with a backflow prevention assembly approved by the City." In the Board's discussions a few months ago, it was proposed that there be a device on every house to guard against any possible cross connection. "If we don't do that, this paragraph appears to make it illegal to not have a device," Mr. Brown pointed out. Mr. Nelson said that Mr. Brown was missing the part that says "a private line carrying well water." Mr. Brown read that phrase and "or to make, install etc." as two separate things. Mr. Nelson reads that as "beyond the normal use of the domestic water system." Mr. Brown thinks it says that it's illegal to not have a device on your house. Mike Smith is relatively certain that it means it's illegal to have a cross -connection between the potable water system, or your plumbing system, and any fixture you have in the house. Ray Herrmann called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Marylou Smith moved that the Board postpone a vote on the second ordinance to adopt the Rules and Regulations until the next meeting. Tim Dow seconded the motion. Dr. Grigg asked if that causes a problem for staff. Mr. Hibbard said it wouldn't. Dave Stewart suggested that the Engineering Committee meet to consider this prior to the next meeting. Tim Dow and Tom Brown are not members of that committee, but they will be invited to attend because they have concerns about the ordinance. It was stressed that any other Board members are welcome to come as well. Notices of the meeting will be sent to all members. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion with the caveat that the Engineering Committee explore further the issues of concern. Water and Wastewater Utility 1993 Annual Report Board members received copies of the Utility 1993 Annual Report in their packets. Mike Smith introduced staff member Diana Royval who has produced the Utility annual report for several years. "She has always done an excellent job," he said. This year has been an even greater challenge than in past years because the goal was to significantly reduce the cost, while trying to maintain the quality of the product. The Board was impressed with her efforts and gave her a round of applause. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary In the interest of time, Andy Pineda referred the Board to the numbers on the handouts. "We are tracking right on average," he said. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 18 Financial Status Report Scott Harder reported that operating revenues year to date were within 5 percent of what they were last year at this time for both the water and wastewater funds. On PIFs we are off to a faster start than we were last year. We are 26% ahead on the wastewater side and on the water side we are 36% ahead. "We are at a record pace for development reviews," he said. Regional Water Boards' Meeting with Governor Romer Mike Smith announced that the meeting is set for Monday, May 16th in Greeley at the Ramkota Inn. Cash bar will be from 5:30 - 6:30, 6:30 - Dinner, and the discussion with Governor Romer follows dinner. Mr. Smith said that we will try to arrange car pools for those who are interested. Southside Ditch Transfer Update Dennis Bode reminded the Board that the Utility had filed an application at the end of 1992 for the transfer of Southside Ditch water rights from agricultural to municipal use. An engineering report was recently completed. The next step is to try to work out an agreement with the Southside irrigation companies regarding such items as dedication credits and ditch losses. The other item staff and consultants will tackle is working with some of the objectors to hopefully satisfy some of their concerns. The final step, if there are any objectors that remain, will be to go to water court for the final resolution of any remaining issues. Forest Service Permit Update Mike Smith sent an electronic message to City Council members giving them an update on Joe Wright Special Use Permit issues. Water Board members were given copies of the memo. "I don't think the issues will be resolved before the next meeting. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to call me," he said. Board's Input on 1995 City Budget Neil Grigg said that the Board was requested by a memo from the mayor to provide input before May 6th on the City's 1995 budget. "In the past we haven't had any big issues," he said. "If we didn't have anything else on the agenda today, I'm sure we would have at least some input," he added. The Board wasn't prepared to make any comments. Committee Reports Water Supply Tom Brown said they met about the Sheep Creek Reservoir issue which has already been discussed. The only other item they discussed was their next task which is to begin a broad scale review of review of options for increasing City water supply. Their next meeting will be in two months. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 19 Legislative and Finance Tom Gallier prepared a Legislative review which was sent to Board members. The City Council Legislative Review Committee received information on three water related issues, and asked for input on the issues from the Water Board, Mr. Gallier related. The three were: (1) Designation of Rocky Mountain National Park as a Wilderness Area; (2) W.A.T.E.R. III Ballot Initiative; and (3) Water Rights Ballot Initiative. According to Mr. Gallier's memo, Congressman David Skaggs has announced his intention to introduce legislation to register all of Rocky Mountain National Park as a Wilderness Area. The bill would exempt all existing water related structures within the park. He has asked Congressman Wayne Allard to consider co -sponsoring the bill. Mr. Allard is considering the request, and in a letter which was attached to the memo, has asked all water agencies in his district for their comments. Staff is currently researching the issue, and has asked the NCWCD for its position. The City's Natural Resources Board has also been asked for its input. Mr. Gallier said he wasn't quite sure what kind of input they wanted from our Board, but he felt obligated to inform the Board of the potential legislation. As for the two ballot initiatives, neither has been approved by the Colorado Supreme Court yet for signature data. However, the implications are quite significant, he said. If enough signatures are gathered by mid -to the end of August, it could appear on the November ballot. He said he should point out that there is very little the City can do in terms of ballot initiatives. If they do make it onto the ballot, staff will be asked to answer questions from the Water Board and City Council as to what the impact of these will be. "It will be up to City officials to get the word out." Dr. Grigg said that these are all heavy issues for the Water Board to try to discuss today. Mr. Smith suggested that the Legislative and Finance Committee may want to meet and discuss these items. The Committee's chair Tim Dow said that would be fine. Mr. Gallier clarified that the Council Legislative Review Committee wants input now, but they don't want to take a stand at this point. Dr. Grigg suggested that the Board keep Mr. Gallier's memo as a resource copy for future reference. "We need to keep up on all of these new items," Dr. Grigg concluded. Conservation and Public Education and Engineering No reports Cost of Service Ad Hoc Committee Scott Harder had no report, but he requested that the Committee meet sometime soon on the CSU issue and to discuss some of the updated financial numbers. Paul Clopper requested that when the meeting dates and times have been scheduled for all the committees, that all Water Board members be informed. A lot of important and interesting items are being discussed, he said, and there may be those besides committee members who would like to attend. Molly Nortier agreed to inform all members of all the committee meetings. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1994 Page 20 Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M. i ,,-�"141 - Y,rZ;J Water Boar Secretary