HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/17/1995WATER BOARD MINUTES
November 17,1995
3:00 - 5:50 P.M.
Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room
700 Wood Street
COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON
Chuck Wanner
MEMBERS PRESENT
Paul Clopper, President, John Bartholow, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Alison
Adams, Dave Lauer, Howard Goldman, Robert Ward, Tom Sanders, Tom Brown, Dave Frick
STAFF
Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha-Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Kevin Gertig, Beth
Voelkel, Molly Nortier
GUESTS
Eric Wilkinson, Darell Zimbelman and Bill Brown, NCWCD
Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer
Judy Francis and Kim Turner, CSU Student Observers
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed:
MINUTES:
John Bartholow pointed out on p. 14 that the first sentence of the second full paragraph should say
Robert Ward suggested... instead of Mr. Bartholow's name. Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes
of October 20, 1995 be approved as amended. John Bartholow seconded the motion and the Board
voted unanimous approval.
UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
No report
PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON LAND EXCHANGE FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
Board members had received background information, a copy of the Congressional House bill
sponsored by Rep. Wayne Allard, and a map showing the location of the proposed exchange for the
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 2
US Forest Service. Mike Smith said that the proposed Land Exchange Bill calls for the exchange of
920 acres of property jointly owned by the Cities of Greeley and Fort Collins, and 178 acres owned
by the Water Supply and Storage Company for USFS land under and around various reservoirs and
water facilities owned by Fort Collins and Greeley.
The colors on the map indicated National Forest, light green; Wilderness, dark green; Rockwell
Ranch property, orange, and private property, white. Mr. Smith summarized the main points using
overheads. The white parts are owned by the cities, but in trade we are only offering those parts in
orange on the map. "We had more land value than what we were getting back, so we took some of
the property out of the trade," he added. Most of it is property that the Board has heard about in the
past. Various parcels are jointly owned by the two cities, a couple are in wilderness areas, one is at
Kelly Flats and another is Rockwell Ranch Property.
Paul Clopper asked Mr. Smith to provide some background on the Rockwell Ranch site for the
benefit of the new people. Mr. Smith said that the land was acquired in the 1920s by Fort Collins and
Greeley, and the conditional rights were filed in the late '70s. There are a small number of direct flow
rights associated with the ranch; about 10-15 cfs. "Are we going to keep those rights?" Tom Sanders
asked. "The rights are part of the transaction, and one of the selling points for the Forest Service and
the state," Mr. Smith responded. "We would convey the direct flow rights to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board," he said.
Mr. Smith then summarized the land exchange and the proposed bill. Initially it was just going to be
an exchange of Greeley's and Fort Collins' Rockwell Ranch land, he said. Within the last two months
Greeley decided to include Water Supply & Storage Company (WSSC), which has a couple of
reservoirs and some land to trade. We are giving away more land than we are getting back. Greeley
and Water Supply, on the other hand, are asking for more land than what they have to give up," he
explained. As a result, they will pay Fort Collins the appraisal price, about $200,000, for the excess
land. This arrangement is not included in the legislation.
Basically, Greeley and Fort Collins will supply the land that the Forest Service would like, trading it
for land under the reservoirs: Joe Wright for Fort Collins, Chambers Lake and Long Draw for WSSC
and Peterson Lake, Barnes Meadow, Comanche, Hourglass, Twin Lakes and Milton Seaman for
Greeley. He noted that for two of these reservoirs, especially Long Draw, some easements already
exist.
Tom Sanders asked for clarification about the land that we receive under Joe Wright. "Does that give
us absolute control, meaning we don't have to renew the special use permit every 5-7 years?" "Yes,"
Mr. Smith replied. "Does this also mean that the City doesn't have to release flows in the winter
months? Dr. Sanders asked. "That doesn't go away," Mr. Smith said.
"Who initiated this?" Dave Lauer asked. Congressman Wayne Allard's office heard that Fort Collins
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 3
and Greeley were interested in doing a land exchange with the Forest Service. "We were going to go
through the normal process, and they offered to sponsor a bill to expedite the process for us," Mr.
Smith related. He stressed that this will involve no water court proceedings.
Mr. Lauer asked for an explanation of the phrase: USFS will grant perpetual access easement to
cities. "Perpetual easements, granted by the FS, permits us to access FS property to get to our
property," Mr. Smith explained. He read a section from the bill that says, "The Secretary of
Agriculture shall, in exchange for such property, transfer to the cities and to the WSSC, all right, title,
and interest of the United States, including the mineral estate, in and to the Federal lands described
in subsection (c)..." "So we will receive title to that land," he added.
The main provisions of the proposed legislation were explored by Mike Smith:
1) Eliminate possible title conflict between Greeley and USFS regarding 10-acre Timberline
Lake Property.
The title for this tract of land has been unclear, resulting in disagreement between Greeley and the
FS. Greeley agreed to give it to the FS.
2) USFS will grant perpetual access easement to cities.
Mr. Smith explained that earlier.
3) Cities will make facilities accessible to public.
They will be open to the public just as they are now.
4) Minimum flows below Joe Wright will continue. The Joint Operations Plan will continue.
Minimum flows below Joe Wright will continue after we have our easement. "We now have an
easement," Mr. Smith pointed out.
5) Continue with Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery program until January 1997. No
further requirements associated with land exchange.
Part of the process of attaining an easement from the Forest Service involved working on an ESA
recovery program with a number of other entities, Mr. Smith explained. What we agreed to is to work
on the recovery program with the ESA. What Greeley wants to do is encourage the Fish & Wildlife
Service to complete this task; hence including the specific date of January 1997 in the bill. "Frankly,
the completion date is a throw -away; if it isn't acceptable, that's okay with us," Mr. Smith admitted.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 4
The second part of that provision is that the exchange of land itself will not trigger another review.
"We just went through a review, and we don't intend to go through another one," he stressed.
6) No water rights included in exchange.
We're not giving any water rights to the Federal Government.
7) The direct diversion rights associated with the Rockwell Ranch are to be dedicated to the
Colorado Water Conservation Board for the instream flow program.
8) USFS has right to purchase reservoir sites if cities abandon operations.
"If we decide to take the reservoirs out of service, they have the right to buy back the property," Mr.
Smith explained.
9) USFS boundary modification (Cherokee Park area).
Because the FS is supporting the legislation, they requested that something beneficial to them be
included. They would like to modify the boundaries in order to provide more efficient administration
of certain Federal lands adjoining Roosevelt National Forest. This is now included in this legislation.
Dave Lauer asked if there were any sensitive areas related to the recovery program. "Frankly,
including WSSC may be sensitive," Mr. Smith replied. The FS is being sued over WSSC's use of
Long Draw.
Robert Ward concluded that the bottom line here is that the cities are willing to give up some land
in order to get out from under the Endangered Species Act requirement, "and future permit issues,"
Mr. Smith added.
How is the land appraised at Joe Wright when it's land where we already have an easement? Tom
Brown asked. "Since the land isn't in perpetual easement, and it is still owned by the FS, it is
appraised very close to the same value as the adjoining land," Mr. Smith explained. He also pointed
out that the easement can be revoked at any time. He mentioned that Long Draw Reservoir has an
easement that predates the special use permit process. It has been designated in the same category
as a land right. "Our easement is valued at $1200 an acre to the Forest Service," he said. Mr. Brown
reiterated: The appraiser values this land as if an easement did exist? Essentially are they putting no
value on the easement? "Right, they are not discounting it at all," Mr. Smith responded.
Tom Sanders is bothered by the FS acquiring the Rockwell Ranch site. "If Wild & Scenic designation
were ever overturned, that site would become very valuable again. What are the chances of our ever
getting it back from the FS to build a dam there? he asked. "First of all, the site was never big enough
E
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 5
to build a reservoir; it's not an easy site," Mr. Smith stated. The reservoir would actually inundate land
that belongs to the FS, "so we would have to negotiate with them again."
Mr. Lauer wondered what it is in the ESA that we are getting out from under. What the language
says is if the recovery program for the South Platte isn't adopted by January 1997, Greeley, Fort
Collins and WSSC don't have any other obligations to the ESA," Mr. Smith responded. "That's pretty
heavy duty," he stressed. "Why would the Federal Government want to forgo access to that water
if that's deemed to be a major element in the ESA?" Mr. Ward asked. "They probably wouldn't," Mr.
Smith replied. "Then what's the chance of this getting through Congress?" Mr. Ward continued. "In
my opinion, with that provision in there, it's not going to happen," Mr. Smith predicts. "If that
provision is not in there, it seems to me, we don't gain anything," Mr. Ward contends. "With existing
conditions we may not change a lot," Mr. Smith remarked, "but perhaps 10 to 20 years from now,
conditions may change." Alison Adams thinks this locks us in to existing requirements, "and I think
that is the overriding benefit." Mr. Smith agreed. "Even if we are left with the January 1997 language
and the recovery program as it is today, we know what that is and can deal with it, but we may not
know what that will be 10-20 years from now," Ms. Adams continued. Mr. Smith added that we may
not be doing ourselves a favor today, but we may be helping someone in future years.
"Is it going to cost us much to get this advantage?" Terry Podmore asked. "No, we're just trading
land," Mr. Smith replied, "and we get $200,000 back as a part of the trade," Ms. Adams added. She
also commented that the January 1997 provision doesn't actually get us out of the ESA requirements.
"All it does is put the emphasis on the Federal Government to make a decision between now and
1997. If they don't make a decision, it gets us out." "You're absolutely correct," Mr. Smith said.
"Why is Rep. Allard sponsoring this bill, rather than allowing us to follow the other procedure?" Mr.
Podmore wondered. "It's probably faster." Mr. Smith surmised that Congressman Allard and Senator
Brown feel they can get a bill passed soon that will probably avoid 4-5 years of work to accomplish
this otherwise.
Howard Goldman asked if the City Council has already passed some kind of ordinance. The City
Council Legislative Committee looked at the bill and liked the concept. They then referred it to the
Water Board and Natural Resources Board for their comments and their recommendations.
Paul Clopper asked if the Water Board should provide their recommendation on whether to support
or oppose this bill. "Right," Mr. Smith answered.
Mr. Ward asked what the City has done with the subject land; "does it cost you anything?" It was
leased for $1500 a year (split between Greeley and Fort Collins) until this year when the lease was
allowed to expire, Mr. Smith replied. What happens to the conditional decree on Rockwell?" Dave
Frick asked. "It goes away," Mr. Smith said.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 6
Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the proposed land exchange.
Alison Adams seconded the motion.
"With the easements we get, is there any ability to increase the size of the reservoir and would this
facilitate that process?" Alison Adams inquired. "Not with ours; Greeley asked for a little more land
around Seaman because they are anticipating expansion," Mr. Smith responded. "We aren't expecting
to enlarge Joe Wright."
Mr. Herrmann asked if there would be any more permit activity relative to the water shed with the
FS. Mr. Smith said not with Joe Wright.
John Bartholow asked how the FS views this. They were involved in drafting this legislation with the
exception of the parts in italics, Mr. Smith said. He emphasized that before this language was added
they were agreeable to the legislation. Mr. Lauer asked if staff is recommending this bill. "I think it's
a good bill; even if they removed the part about the ESA," Mr. Smith stated.
Mr. Lauer asked if Tom Sanders would accept a friendly amendment that would change the part in
italics from January 1997 to January 1998. John Bartholow said he would like to scratch the italics
date all together. He explained that the Water Board and the Natural Resources Board are on record
conceptually supporting the City's playing a more active role in facilitating the ESA recovery plan on
the South Platte River. "Although this doesn't fly in the face of that, and I can certainly understand
why Greeley would want to do it, and I can understand why the Fish & Wildlife Service should have
a fire under their feet," he pointed out. "Nonetheless, I don't think it's appropriate to try to use
language such as this to effectively get out from under the ESA," he asserted.
Tom Sanders remarked that he agrees with protecting endangered species etc., but for the FS to come
back after the City has been operating the reservoir for nearly 20 years and require that we spend
about $2 million to modify the reservoir in order to allow water to be released in the winter months
to maintain an ecosystem that wasn't even there prior to the construction of the reservoir, is wrong.
"And," he added, "they're getting that water free!" "I think we need to resolve this issue so we aren't
continually having to comply with a new regulation on a new species that is becoming endangered,"
he insisted.
Mr. Bartholow said "let's not mix issues here." The minimum flow issue is one thing and the
endangered species issue is another. "I understand that, but they're not usually exclusive either," Mr.
Sanders remarked. "As currently operated," Mr. Bartholow countered, "that water today does not
reach Nebraska."
Mr. Smith pointed out, for the record, that the modification to Joe Wright will not be $2 million. The
change to the dam probably will be under $200,000. Furthermore, Dennis Bode has worked out
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 7
exchanges with other entities, and the reservoir will be operated in such a way that we shouldn't lose
much, if any water, Mr. Smith stressed.
Dr. Sanders did not wish to change his motion. Mr. Bartholow said he would be happy to attempt
to amend the motion, but he would like to hear further opinions on this issue. Dr. Sanders, and Alison
Adams who seconded the motion, both said they would allow the amendment as part of the motion,
that the phrase January 1997 be removed.
President Clopper clarified the motion as follows: the Water Board recommends that the City Council
support the legislation as presented by staff except for the phrase "January 1997." The Board
recommends elimination of that language in the bill. "Of course the bill itself can't be changed, but we
are proposing to the Council that we like this bill with the exception of the January 1997 aspect of
it," he explained. Mr. Bartholow added that although the Board recommends the removal of that
phrase, it is only to the degree that Mr. Smith, as the negotiator has the prerogative to do that.
Mr. Clopper called for the question. He asked for a show of hands. Paul Clopper, John Bartholow,
Tom Brown, Dave Frick, Terry Podmore and David Lauer voted for the motion. Tom Sanders,
Alison Adams and Howard Goldman voted against the motion, and Ray Herrmann and Robert Ward
abstained. The motion passed 6 to 3 with 2 abstentions.
Howard Goldman and Alison Adams voted no basically for the reasons that Tom Sanders articulated.
Mr. Goldman thinks the date ought to stay in the bill. Ray Herrmann believes that the City should
seek to go ahead with the proposed land exchange, but he abstained from the vote because he thinks
a special bill of the Congress is probably not the appropriate way. He also said that if the bill is going
to be negotiated on that issue we might want to include some other issues. Robert Ward said he didn't
fully understand what the Board was voting on; that's the main reason he abstained. In fact he wanted
to know why people voted for it. The ESA, as he understands it, is an extremely complex piece of
legislation. "I don't know what this accomplishes under that legislation," he said. "I don't see that it
matters, whether you take the phrase out or leave it in."
Mr. Bartholow thinks this has very little influence on the ESA one way or the other. It's mostly to
eliminate the hassle that has gone on for a long time, and neither the cities nor the FS liked it. "Is this
going to eliminate that, or is it going to actually make it worse?" Mr. Ward wanted to know. "I'm just
struggling with what the ramifications of this are," he admitted.
Mr. Clopper said this was an easy vote for him because he agrees with what John Bartholow said;
"whether it's in or out I don't see that it has a major influence." His previous experience with the
Rockwell site indicated to him that there were a number of technical hurdles involved as a result of
the Wild & Scenic designation more than six years ago. Mr. Ward thought the Board was talking
about the January 1997 phrase. "What's the effect of that?" He tends to support the fundamental
approach of the legislation. "Is this bill going to open the City to a lot of legal costs? That's where
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 8
my real fear comes in," he commented. Howard Goldman thinks it's just the opposite. He thinks the
phrase ought to stay in if there's a chance that we could avoid all of those legal problems that Mr.
Ward thinks could happen in the future. "It doesn't really matter much either way," he said. I think
if Congress wants to do it they will; it doesn't matter what agreement we have here." "Would this bill
override the ESA?" Mr. Ward asked. "Can't you just see the lawsuits coming out of something like
that!" he added. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the ESA still must be followed. They could come in
and impress upon the City that it has to comply even though we thought we had some kind of
maneuver that could exempt us from being obligated. Then we would end up following it just as we
always have, as opposed to fighting it," he stressed.
Ray Herrmann would simply like to see a clean land exchange through the normal channels without
all the extraneous items attached. "It may take a little longer; if the bill makes it easier, fine, but there
are things included in this bill that make it harder for me to understand," he concluded. "I normally
would agree with you," Mr. Smith said, "but the FS put provisions within the bill that would probably
be in the land exchange authorization too. They wouldn't process the exchange without those in there,
and we wouldn't process it without some of them too."
Dr. Sanders said that he wanted to be on record that he was against the amendment and not the land
exchange. "I thought we were going to vote on the amendment first," he said. His idea was, "give us
the rules now, and we'll meet the rules, rather than come back years later with new rules." Ms. Adams
said that also was what she didn't like about it. This moving target of changing regulations on utilities
is a problem. "There's nothing wrong with giving them a deadline to motivate them to make a
decision."
President Clopper apologized for the confusion among some of the members on the voting process.
He said he may not have made the voting procedure clear enough. The Board said they thought the
vote was clear and that the minutes will reflect the thoughts and comments of the members.
CBT OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS
President Clopper welcomed three guests from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District:
Eric Wilkinson, General Manager; Darell Zimbelman, Associate General Manager; and Bill Brown,
Director representing the Fort Collins area. They brought copies of the District's Inclusions and
Ownership, Resolutions and Information publications for Board members and staff.
Eric Wilkinson began by saying that he and his colleagues were here to provide background
information and answer Board members' questions. He referred to the "Interim Guidelines on
Limitations on Ownership of CBT Allotment Contracts for Domestic or Municipal Purposes," the
first item in the publication they distributed.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 9
"As all of you know, there is extensive growth in this area," he said. The District has been approached
by many allottees, who provide domestic and municipal water supplies, to address the concerns of
their inability to meet existing water demands under the District's former guidelines, "which were
unpublished, but basically understood by most of our allottees." The formula used was the one
outlined in 1-a of the resolution. It involved taking twice the average annual demand of the last ten
year period, subtracting the yield of an entity's native water supplies and coming up with the number
of CBT units that could be owned.
There was general misunderstanding of what yield to apply to determine the water right; some people
applied an average yield, some people applied a 1-in-20, others used a firm yield (defined as a 1-in-50
or 1-in-100 year drought), he explained. "You can see the ramifications of a non -uniform application
of that formula," he said.
In addition, one of the major stumbling blocks of that formula is that it took into account the demand
of the entity; the demand was defined as the demand averaged over the last 10-year period. If you
look at the last 10-year period in this area, in terms of growth, it was a relatively slow period, with
an accelerated growth in recent years. By averaging the last 10 years, the demand has diluted
somewhat the exceptional growth that has taken place in some of the domestic and municipal water
purveyors' systems.
The Board adopted the Interim (he emphasized interim) policy to address limitations of ownership
of CBT units while they are in the process of adopting revisions to the District's rules, regulations and
policies, which the public will be able to review. They think this process will continue through at least
the first half of 1996. With the problems of lack of consistency facing them, they needed to provide
some kind of definition of consistency throughout the District area.
They addressed two issues in the interim guidelines:
1) Growth - Allow entities a way to crank up the demand from an average 10-year demand
to a current demand, and a commitment -to -serve type arrangement. "We have several entities,
and Fort Collins is one of them, that have what we referred to as commitments to serve; in
other words, they are given water for land that has been annexed, and have a commitment to
serve those areas." The entity needs to accommodate the calculated demand based on the
commitment to serve. The District accommodated that by using the 10-year demand numbers
to determine a per tap usage for each category of tap the entity might have in its service area,
and applying that per tap usage to the current taps being served plus the committed taps. With
respect to municipalities, that commitment to serve taps can be through annexed areas, based
on an average number of taps per area for the land usage that has been assigned, or by a
method that coincides with the City's planning and development for the future.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 10
2) Definition of Yield - They proposed the definition to be that average yield be used under
the former guidelines as basin or non-CBT water rights. He said they also proposed a second
point that allowed firm yield of the entity's water supplies being taken into account. "We did
that to assure that the entities had a firm or assured water supply with a combination of native
or existing water supply with CBT supply,, to provide enough water to meet an average
demand in a 1-in-50 year drought."
He pointed out that in the first formula, it computes the number of CBT units an entity can
own. The CBT quota varies from 50-100% The reason for doubling the demand in a direct
computation of the number of units you can own, is to allow for the 50% quota. In the second
formula he noted that the quantity being computed there is the volume of CBT water that can
be owned. That differs from the first formula and it takes into account a provision for the
District's 701/o fixed quota contract as opposed to its varied quota contract that ranges from
50-100%.
"I think there is a question as to why the District feels there needs to be a policy regarding ownership
of CBT," he continued. Historically there has always been a cap on agricultural use of water. In
agriculture the District looks at the native water supply combined with CBT to provide an adequate
water supply to the areas to be served. That reaches a little deeper than the District policy in the state
statutes. Looking at the different types of allotment contracts that Conservancy Districts are
authorized to issue in the Water Conservancy Act, it states that the Districts shall allocate an adequate
water supply, combined with other water supplies available to an entity. The District has historically
applied that principal, not only to agricultural allotment contracts, but has, in past years applied it
through existing guidelines for class B and Class C allotments, to the extent that Class C allotment
contracts are domestic water providers, and to the extent that Class C are irrigation contracts such
as what North Poudre owns, etc. Those are applied on a system -wide basis rather than a farm -by -farm
basis. The difference between a Class C allotment contract, owned for irrigation and a Class B
contract is that the latter are applied to a specific parcel of land. The Class C allotments for irrigation
are tied to a system.
"In looking back over the records for the District, we found, accidentally, after this resolution was
passed, that in February of 1962, there was a proposal before the Board relative to domestic rural
water purveyors, the same formula (oddly enough) that we have proposed as the alternative formula
in the interim guidelines," Mr. Wilkinson pointed out. "Apparently it's not a new idea."
He reiterated that the District has always looked at the equitable distribution of water to meet
beneficial uses within the District boundaries. When the original allotment contracts were issued, they
were issued in a way to, he believes, help get the project going; they had applied the cap policy in
1937.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 11
President Clopper asked for questions from the Board. Tom Brown, chair of the Water Supply
Committee, began with a general question. "I think the CBT project is known for the ease with which
shares are traded, thus creating a market that is world famous in terms of transferability of water
rights," he said. He thinks that is a very positive feature in allowing water to move to a more valued
use. "The effect of the guidelines works against that," he contends. "The issue is how much efficiency
we're willing to give up in terms of letting water go to its higher valued use for this equity goal. It
comes down to what is this equity goal the District is trying to focus on with its policy? I don't really
see how restricting free sale, voluntary transactions, is a way of increasing equity. It seems to me it
gets in the way of the ability of someone who owns a right to sell if he/she wants to."
Mr. Wilkinson insisted that it does not do that. "We don't restrict the sale of water at all, other then
the ownership limitation." What the District is trying to do with regard to the distribution of water,
is to distribute it where it is needed for beneficial purposes. "We are trying to focus, through the cap
policy, on where the needs are, and trying to limit the use of the supplemental supply whether it be
agricultural, municipal, rural domestic or industrial. The driving force of the project was to provide
a supplemental water supply to compliment base water supplies in the area; as the Conservancy Act
says, "to provide adequate supplemental supplies." If there were an unrestricted movement or
ownership of water, he thinks the market would also be affected for that water. "It may be fine for
awhile to do that." He admits that, in effect, the cap puts a limitation on the demand for CBT, and
by doing so, it probably limits the price that a seller would get, but it also helps to influence favorably
the amount of money you would pay for a unit if you're a buyer. If there were an unrestricted ability
to acquire water, the individuals or entities that could afford to, would acquire that water, he
contends.
"Obviously, as you said, CBT is a very good water supply; there are very few strings attached.
However, there is a limited supply and sooner or later you have to face the music," he asserted. "If
you look 20, 30 to 50 years down the road, and look at a Board agenda for the District, you probably
wouldn't see an entry that says transfer of allotment contracts, because at some point CBT is going
to find a home that's not going to change. When that happens, CBT will be defined as to where it
goes from that point on into the future. The reliance will then have to move to the base water supply,"
he concluded.
He complimented Fort Collins for the pro -active ways it has looked at base water supplies, taken
them in and accommodated them into the system. "If every entity could and would do that, we
wouldn't have the concern about what happens in the future." He thinks that the District's interim
policy is incorporating CBT water with the native water supplies; the way the system should work.
One of the things the Board looked at recently in earnest, is the requirement for base water supplies
to compliment CBT ownership. Historically that has been addressed in a variety of ways: In
agriculture, the historic practice of irrigation on the land as a prerequisite for getting CBT water
attached to that land; in rural domestics, started in the late 50's and 60's, there was a conscientious
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 12
effort to take treated, high quality drinking water to farmers in rural areas to improve their quality
of life, and that water was truly supplemental because there already existed a base water supply in
those areas for irrigation; in well water, for example. "As you know, the complexion of rural
domestics has changed in the last 30 years." The District is now serving sub -divisions, towns, etc. as
well as farmers," he acknowledged.
Regarding municipalities, most of them began with a base water supply. With the formula and the
former guidelines, the District is trying to take that into account. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that there
are some cases where municipalities have abandoned their base water supplies in light of becoming
a part of rural domestic systems, or annexing on to municipal systems. "It's a dramatic impact
depending on what the District Board's decision will be and what happens within the District's
boundaries with regard to base water supplies," he stressed. He cited an hypothetical example: The
Board may say, "we need a 50% base water supply for every entity out there that has CBT
ownership;" not retrospectively, but prospectively. "What kind of demand does that put on the base
agricultural water supplies? Are we going to create our own Thornton type case where entities
scramble around to provide base water supplies to the extent that we dry up agriculture?" He added,
"Or is 10% the right number?"
He went on to say that "it also has to be recognized, particularly by boards like yours, that if there
is a requirement for base water supplies for rural domestics, that there has to be an air of cooperation
and communication among the rural domestics and entities like Fort Collins." He said that entities like
ELCO, North Weld and Fort Collins -Loveland can buy base water supplies, but how are they going
to use it without cooperation from municipalities like Fort Collins, Loveland, etc. With the
formulation of the rural domestics, it was very easy for them to tap on to the CBT supply, "and if you
look around, most all of them did." Up until recently (in the last 10-15 years) that wasn't an issue
because they were viewed as supplemental water supplies, and now, for some, it's the sole water
supply.
It should be recognized, not only by the Board, but existing water users that if that type of policy is
adopted, there will be an expectation and an anticipation that there must be cooperation among
entities; not only through the delivery of the water, but through the change of water rights. "For
example, if Fort Collins -Loveland had acquired Southside Ditch shares as they grew into the area,
when Fort Collins went through the change case, the same brain damage would have been done
whether you are carrying through the number of shares that Fort Collins did or whether you carry
some additional shares for Fort Collins -Loveland; probably the cost per unit for water would have
dropped with a cooperative effort." He acknowledged that there are some rural domestics that are
worried about a requirement by the District Board for a base water supply, because they honestly feel
that some municipalities will hold them up, because they know the only way they can get water is
through an exchange or cooperation with a municipality.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 13
Tom Sanders expressed the concern of the Board that when Fort Collins buys North Poudre water
rights, for example, that have CBT water in them, "how does that count towards our total; does it
count directly?" "You have to own it and you must be the allottee on the contract itself," Mr.
Wilkinson replied. "You own a lot of North Poudre shares; those won't count against you," he
assured the Board.
Robert Ward pointed out that if some groups are boxed out of participating in how that forms over
time, then there is concern on the part of our Water Board, that we're going to end up years later with
fewer shares than we ought to have. "I try to look at it the way states view compacts that allot a
certain percent of the water to different states as water basins. Is there a way that we could work out
a compact with other cities around here, where we could be assured a certain amount when that lock-
out comes?" "I think what the policy does is allow you to acquire shares as you grow and have
commitments to serve," Darell Zimbelman responded. "If we took the cap off, there are a few wealthy
entities and agriculturists in this area that might acquire the water now instead of allowing gradual
acquisition of water as growth occurs," he explained. "We think this policy is liberal in allowing you
to acquire water as you grow," he stressed.
"The municipalities all want to assure their future supplies for the benefit of their future citizens," Mr.
Ward stated. "You could be in a situation, because you are very well off financially, where you could
acquire twice as much water than you ultimately could ever use," Mr. Zimbelman pointed out. "If you
get water as you grow, then if for some reason you stop growing, you won't need any more," he
reiterated. "How does the City protect itself in terms of levels of drought?" Mr. Ward continued.
With growth, it can't shift into a different mode of drought protection." "I wouldn't recommend
relying completely on CBT to do that," Mr. Wilkinson replied.
Mr. Wilkinson related that there are some who wonder if CBT is the right vehicle to use if you're
looking at assurance against a 1-in-100 or 1-in-500 drought to protect your average demand. As he
stated in his letter, if an entity feels that it needs a more dependable, firm water supply to meet a
drought of greater severity, then that need should be met with a supply other than Project water. In
some instances, base water supplies, particularly those with senior water rights, have a higher firm
yield and have the ability to provide water supplies during prolonged droughts. It is difficult to justify
the use of Project water to provide a water supply to meet the unencumbered water demands in a
drought more severe than a one -in -fifty year drought.
Tom Brown said he may be missing the point of the Interim Guidelines, "but they seem to say that
the more native supply you have, the less CBT you are allowed to have; so the better job you've done
of acquiring native supplies, the less CBT is allowed. On the other hand, if you have done a lousy job
and you haven't tried to acquire base supplies, you can have lots of CBT based on your demand," he
asserted. "A city like Fort Collins seems to be penalized for having base supplies rather than being
rewarded for having base supplies," he added. "If you want to frame it that way, I think you're
probably right," Mr. Wilkinson replied, "but if you look at CBT as being the ultimate in ownership
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 14
of water rights, and the water right to own, you are right. The purpose of CBT was to provide a
supplemental supply to the area, so you have a full water supply. You chose, as a City, to purchase
base water supplies. If you hadn't done that, yes, you would have more CBT water. You have
adequate water now to meet your demands with base and CBT water. For discussion's sake you are
saying that those cities that have good base supplies should be rewarded by being allowed to have
additional supplies above their cap of CBT. What that does is exaggerate a surplus, as I envision it.
In other words, you've got a full water supply and in an average year you have a lot more than a full
water supply, and what you're asking for is far more than that out of a supplemental source that was
designed to provide an adequate supply," he insisted.
It seems to Bill Brown that if you applied this analogy to agricultural users, what you would then be
saying is those agricultural users that have lot of shares of native water could get more CBT, while
those who don't could get very little, which defeats the fundamental purpose of the Project. As a
director on the District Board Mr. Brown acknowledges that he and other directors see a shift in the
CBT allotments; moving from agricultural. to municipal use basically. Dr. Sanders said he
understands that, but the way he interprets this is what Fort Collins should do in the future as it
grows, is to not buy any more base water supplies "because we can always add that later." "You can't
always get it later," Mr. Brown countered. Dr. Sanders stressed that CBT is the best water around.
He added that the hypocrisy he sees in this state regarding water bothers him, because they want
water to be a free market item except when somebody else wants it in California or someone else out
of your basin. The other issue that bothers him is if the District boundary changes, and the other
entities south of us get into it, "then we have a real problem! Broomfield is already in and they're next
to Thornton, Northglenn, etc." "Unless there is a fundamental change in state law, CBT water can
not go out of the District boundaries," Mr. Wilkinson stressed.
Tom Brown pointed out a couple of District goals contained in Mr. Wilkinson's letter: (1) Equitable
allocation and (2) To encourage ownership of native supply. "That second goal seems to work
opposite to this requirement," he said. "This formula does not encourage ownership of native supply;
it discourages it," he asserted. Dave Frick noted that it seems that all the City has to do is pass a
policy to require 10 CBT units for every acre of land that we want to serve; "then suddenly, from now
on, we would be able to acquire CBT water if it's within the criteria, and it forces us to change our
policies on acquisition if we want CBT."
"That's one of the reasons the Board is looking at the base water supply issue," Mr. Wilkinson
explained, "to try to look at how much base water supply, if any, you require an allottee to own. Fort
Collins, obviously, doesn't have to worry about that kind of policy; other entities do. In a case like
that, sell some of your water rights to Fort Collins -Loveland and do the exchange.
Mr. Frick related that the Board was already approached at the last board meeting with a back door
exchange that would have provided somebody with CBT water in a perpetual lease from us, and
would have circumvented the policy. In other words, "the way I see this policy is there are enough
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 15
ways around that I'm not sure it really accomplishes what you intend it to." "With every policy there
are ways to get around it," Mr. Wilkinson admitted. "For instance, with the North Poudre that the
City owns, you are getting 4 ac-ft units per share of that."
Paul Clopper brought up some concerns expressed by the Water Supply Committee. How are these
guidelines going to affect our relationship and our strategy with respect to the agricultural
community? What kinds of changes might we see in that relationship as a result? Is the District really
encouraging the agricultural community with these guidelines?
President Clopper asked if staff had anything to add to the discussion. Dennis Bode commented that
Fort Collins has the policy that they want to have a water supply that meets or exceeds the 1-in-50
year drought. "To me that means that I want to always be just a little above that. The result is, from
now on, the City can't buy CBT water. But if somebody wants to have a policy where they are just
under that, then they could buy all CBT from here out. Mr. Bode thinks there may be another way
to approach the formula where you base part of the new CBT supplies on a percentage of the demand
as maybe an initial look at it. As an example, the City may be allowed to have some percent, maybe
it's 50% of its treated water demand that can come from CBT. As your demands grow, then you can
incrementally increase this; the other 50% may have to come from some other source. It doesn't work
for the Districts right now. Maybe if you were over that percentage limit, you would have to go that
next step and look at the fine yield or average yield criteria, one of the guidelines in the interim policy
now.
The other thing that concerns staff from the administration viewpoint, is that the calculations of
demand do not seem to take into account certain obligations we have. They seem to be based on
physical taps or written commitments for physical taps. "Maybe the language needs to be cleared up
in the guidelines," he concluded.
"We take into account the whole demand," Mr. Wilkinson clarified. "What we use the per tap demand
for is to calculate your commitments to serve." "Reading in the guidelines as it's written now, I
wouldn't conclude that without some additional information," Mr. Bode remarked. Mr. Wilkinson
said they would try to clarify that.
One of the other issues the Water Supply Committee talked about was applying transfers and basically
counting that even though it might not be available. "What we included was the 5-year lease back
agreement as at least a start on the interim guidelines," Mr. Wilkinson explained. "You could show
a commitment outside, like your North Poudre shares; I'm sure you always rent those," he added.
"We do, but we normally don't have a 5 year commitment; essentially it's on a year to year basis," Mr.
Bode replied.
Mr. Wilkinson suggested that the District might say if there is a commitment from Fort Collins that
the North Poudre shares would be rented to agriculture for the next 5 years, there may be some
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 16
forgiveness there. Dr. Sanders pointed out that the whole issue is we never call for it unless we are
in a drought situation. "The lease for a year doesn't have any value to us for drought protection." "I
don't think the District Board would have any objection to interruptibility," Mr. Wilkinson said.
"There are all sorts of interruptible contracts out there. A lot of lease back agreements have clauses
about interruptible supplies. We don't count it against a city's cap to go out on the rental market in
a dry year." "Then you would have to define a drought, and yours may be different from ours," Dr.
Sanders remarked. Mr. Wilkinson doesn'tsee the District scrutinizing the interruptible supply contract
as to the frequency etc., unless the interruptible supply occurs every year," he laughed. He also
mentioned that the District doesn't get into the business of scrutinizing the average and firm yields.
Ben Alexander pointed out that the District will be supplying some utilities with the District's new
southern pipeline. These utilities have had a ground water source that was not feasible financially to
treat, and now they will be using surface waters. "How do you expect them to use that groundwater
source?" "A lot of them will be using it for open area irrigation and some will be mixing it with
surface water to the extent that they can get the nitrate standards, for example, down below 10 ppm
or lower," Mr. Wilkinson answered.
"What are your plans for the Interim Guidelines in terms of review and public comment?" John
Bartholow asked. "We hope to bring those out on the table in January and February," Mr. Wilkinson
said. Mr. Zimbelman added that after the policies and procedures are re -written they must go through
a formal rate policy hearing.
Mr. Clopper asked if the three representatives from the District have a clear understanding of the
Board's and staffs concerns to take back to the District Board. If not, he wanted to take some time
for their questions. Bill Brown pointed out that their meetings are open to the public, and there are
typically two a month; a planning session on the first Thursday and the other is a regular board
meeting on the second Friday. "My hope is that in January we will begin discussing these issues on
a regular basis. "You mentioned earlier that your staff will be interfacing with the District Board and
staff, and I hope that's true," he said. "We would like, if possible, to have some of your people there,"
he said. He invited those who can from the Board and staff, to take advantage of these meetings. Mr.
Wilkinson also emphasized that District staff and Board members are open to talk or meet with the
Utility staff and Water Board members at any time. "Just call us to set something up." He added that
they would be glad to meet with the Water Board when the revisions to the Rules and Regulations
are completed. "The District is trying to be more open," he concluded.
President Clopper suggested that the District send the agendas of the two meetings to the Water
Supply Committee members. Mr. Wilkinson said they would do that.
Dave Lauer asked Mike Smith how these guidelines would affect the Utilities planning for adequate
supplies for the future. Mr. Smith said the cities can't plan from day to day. The planning period for
people who acquire water for the future may not be for 50 or 100 years, but for at least 10-15 years,
• 0-
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 17
he said. "We've thought about a 5-year period," Mr. Wilkinson responded. "Obviously, the CBT
project has helped the City plan for more than 5 or 10 years," Mr. Smith remarked. Mr. Wilkinson
clarified that the CBT project was planned for as much water as they can get out of the basin and
through the system. The projects that the City may have to do to meet our future needs will take
more than 5 years to plan, Mr. Smith reiterated; "15-20 years is more practical for us." "What I was
talking about when I said 5 years was a 5-year projection of your demand regarding the formula," Mr.
Wilkinson clarified. He contends that some entities will be projecting inflated demands which will
result in an immediate exodus out of agriculture into municipalities. "There will be a land rush on
CBT water," he predicted.
Tom Brown said that if he were an agricultural owner of CBT shares, "I wouldn't be in favor of a
policy that would lower or hold down its price. For example, if I'm in agriculture, and live near a city,
I'm a likely seller at some point. The City is not going to be selling its shares. Since we can rent the
water, the City is not hurt by the District keeping the price down." "I'm sensitive to the fact that there
are agricultural owners who want to sell and can't find buyers," Mr. Zimbelman remarked. Bill Brown
commented on the basin of origin bills in the legislature trying to protect the basin rights. Farmers are
concerned about restrictions being imposed to chill the price of their water to municipalities in metro -
Denver. The adjacent farmer wants to keep agriculture viable enough that the little town he lives in
can provide him with the means to continue in farming.
"This discussion has provided some good points that the District Board struggles with too," Bill
Brown continued. It depends on how far you want to go in areas of land use planning, etc. The
District can also see that this can be carried too far in terms of the base supply being eroded. "I'm
going to look hard at the fact that the District's policy doesn't, in effect, penalize Fort Collins and
others for doing a good job of acquiring base supplies. Yet I'm not at the stage where I think there
should be a policy where we reward them for that either."
Dave Lauer thinks that through the District's Rules and Regulations, there should be a way to
encourage and enforce base supply development for those who have not been doing that. "That's
what the Board is starting to look at now," Mr. Wilkinson assured him. "If entities are closing up
what were originally base supplies, there doesn't seem to be anything in the language, at this point,
that would reverse that process," Mr. Lauer stressed. Mr. Wilkinson acknowledged that to be true,
but he said that at the time they began the interim guidelines process, there were other pressing issues
to be considered immediately relative to the rapid growth in the area. "Realistically, I think the base
supply issue will take us at least a year to formulate policy on," he noted.
Mike Smith suggested that the District might want to consider having a variable percentage based on
size of the supply of water for a city. "Maybe it's okay for a small town to have 1000 units of 100%
CBT water where a town of 100,000 should only have 30% CBT. "That's a very good point," Mr.
Wilkinson replied. Others agreed that a sliding scale might be a way to go.
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 18
Dave Frick pointed out that ELCO isn't an agricultural supplier of water. Their biggest users now are
part of the City of Fort Collins; it's the same with Fort Collins -Loveland. "It seems to me, since they
are serving water to areas that historically have been irrigated with native water supplies, they ought
to be using some of that native supply, rather than relying on CBT water from somebody else." He
thinks the policy needs to address maintaining that mix rather than limiting entities like Fort Collins
which has tried to maintain that mix. Mr. Smith commented that the sliding scale approach will also
give them a percentage of base supply they have to meet. "Maybe we should start determining what
that percentage should be and working with them now to achieve it," he suggested. "I don't think
we're going to be able to apply it retroactively; it probably will have to be done prospectively," Mr.
Wilkinson responded.
Dr. Sanders commented that "what you're trying to do is very hard, because you are trying to keep
the price down to ensure more equitable distribution. People don't develop base water supplies if CBT
is cheaper," he asserted. "On the other hand if CBT gets high enough, people will be forced to
develop base supplies. By restricting us you are arbitrarily going to keep CBT cheap." he concluded.
"That's basically the point I was going to make," Mr. Wilkinson responded. Mr. Zimbelman remarked
that CBT prices do float. It has gone up to $3700 and dropped to $800; now it's back to $1650. "If
we can't buy anymore, I'm sure it's going to drop, Mr. Sanders insisted. "It may have an effect, but
it may not drop," Tom Brown observed. "How many shares does Broomfield have?" Dr. Sanders
asked. "They have 2200 and their cap is 20,000," Mr. Wilkinson replied. "What does Fort Collins
have?" Fort Collins has about 18,600, Mr. Bode replied. Dave Frick said that Broomfield's cap is
based on native water supplies they are using outside the District. "All their growth, that they are
provided CBT for, is in Boulder and Weld Counties," Mr. Zimbelman countered. "That's siphoning
CBT water from agricultural. users up here," Mr. Frick insisted. "Is that really what you want to
accomplish?" "Wait a minute," Mr. Wilkinson argued. "You're saying two different things: you're
saying, open up the market, but only open it up to a few people." "No, I'm saying that you want to
maintain your mix in use," Mr. Frick countered. "They have that mix with their Windy Gap water,"
Mr. Wilkinson replied. He added that they had to dispose of their Western water Reservoir.
Robert Ward said what you're trying to determine is what this place is going to look like 50 years
from now, and how to get there. According to Del Carpenter when he set up his compact,"we're
deciding how that water is ultimately going to be divided in totality among different states. You can
see why the compacts are under attack right now because they don't provide all the flexibility that is
needed."
President Clopper remarked that this has been a very good discussion, but that the Board has a lot
of other business to attend to, so it is time to end the discussion unless someone has a pressing
comment. He thanked Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Zimbelman and Mr. Brown for coming.
•
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 19
STAFF REPORTS
Treated Water Production Summary
Dennis Bode reported that treated water use for October was 85% of what was projected.
Financial Status Report
Wendy Williams referred to a sheet with four graphs which was distributed to Board members. The
graphs indicated the Water and Wastewater funds operating revenue and the Water and Wastewater
funds Plant Investment Fees. "Water and Wastewater revenue is a lot more steady," she said. The
Operating Revenue year-to-date is $12,035,972, 1.99% above 1994. PIF revenue decreased 2.75%
from 1994. The Board liked the format which staff used to illustrate the written financial status
report.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Water Supply
No Report
Legislative and Finance
No report
Conservation and Public Education
No report
Engineering
No report
PROPOSED REGIONAL ISSUES COMMITTEE
Paul Clopper explained that this is a follow-up of the discussion initiated by Howard Goldman at the
last meeting when he proposed that the Board consider forming a Liaison Issues standing committee.
Mr. Goldman prepared a memo in which he related that Mr. Clopper appointed John Bartholow and
himself to meet with Mr. Clopper and Mike Smith to flesh out a proposal. The memo was distributed
to Board members.
Mr. Goldman said that, traditionally, the Board has always looked at six or seven areas that are of
fundamental concern to the Board; i.e. Engineering, Water Supply, Conservation and Public
Education and Financial and Legislative issues. "I think we ought to consider one other area and that
is cooperation and/or inter -governmental or inter -agency relationships." That process in and of itself
warrants a committee that begins to focus on, specifically looks at, and brings to the Board a little
bit more in the way of conflict resolution techniques and cooperative activities with other entities in
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 20
order to sustain the most efficient use of our region's water. As a case in point the Board just spent
more than an hour discussing regional issues with NCWCD representatives. "Not only do we want
to be proactive, we want to establish some strategy and/or some process here so that we can be
proactive."
In his memo he proposed that the Committee would:
A. Pursue strategies to promote the benefits of working together to manage water in our
geographical region.
B. Review ongoing projects for their effects on regional water boards and districts, and
recommend proactive methods for resolving potential conflict.
C. Identify and address institutional issues which are an impediment to regionalization.
Alison Adams didn't understand the difference between this proposed committee and the
Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee. Paul Clopper explained that the Water Planning
Committee consists of three Water Board members and three City Council members who meet from
time to time with no set mission per se. Mr. Smith added that the Committee usually deals with any
major planning issue in which Council will be involved and there needs to be some coordination
beforehand, e.g. the Water Treatment Master Plan. Other Council/Water Board committees have
worked on the Water Supply Policy, the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, the Demand
Management Policy, and the Water Quality Policy.
Ms. Adams wasn't quite sure why the Water Planning Committee's function isn't defined better and
perhaps could embody these ideas. Mr. Clopper said that Mike Smith suggested that, if an in-house
committee made up of board members is formed that those, if we wanted to, could be made up of the
three people on the Water Planning Committee, with the addition of Howard Goldman as a fourth.
Dave Lauer likes the idea of having a separate focus on regional issues. Robert Ward pointed out that
everything that we've dealt with at this meeting has related to other organizations. It would be nice
to react at the front end of some of these issues. He thinks staff does a lot of the preliminary work
already, but it might be beneficial to the Board to have a committee like this; especially down the road
with the potential for cooperation in the region and the types of negotiations and agreements that will
be involved, he said.
Mr. Clopper had an idea that he said might serve as a backdrop for the mission of this potential
committee. In the last couple of meetings the Board has been dealing with the regional wastewater
study. He pointed out that the first few months, and possibly a year of the study will involve primarily
planning and coordination. "Which of the four standing committees of this Board does that fall into
right now?" "None," he answered. I think that's a gap in our coverage."
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 21
Ray Herrmann said that these are issues that traditionally the whole board has dealt with, although
there are pieces that smaller committees and sub committees have handled until they were at a point
where they could be taken to the full Board. Will it be a committee that deals with planning
documents or one that Mr. Goldman is advocating which includes the art of talking to people? "I
think that's more a function of the whole Board. But this is something we need to discuss further,"
he concluded.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Clopper suggested that this item be included on the agenda for
the December meeting. "Come prepared with your ideas and suggestions," he said.
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE
No report
REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE
Gale McGaha-Miller reported that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) for the 201 Regional Wastewater Facilities study have been finalized, and will
go to the City Council Tuesday night.
OTHER BUSINESS
Kudos to Gale McGaha-Miller
Tom Sanders attended the Annual Water Environment Federation Conference in Miami in October
and was present for a paper Gale McGaha-Miller gave. "Gale gave one of the best talks of all those
I heard," he said. "It was very informative and she impressed a lot of people who learned a lot about
the good things Fort Collins is doing. It was an outstanding presentation!"
Letter to Coloradoan from Austin Condon
Mike Smith included a memo in Water Board packets and a copy of a letter published in the
Coloradoan from former Forest Service employee Austin Condon. Mr. Smith included a copy of the
proposed "water language" included in the Farm Bill which appears to be the subject of Mr. Condon's
concerns and the proposed "land exchange" legislation, (the Board discussed this earlier) of which
he was also critical. "I sent the memo and the letter to the Council because Mr. Condon was
encouraging citizens to call the Council and complain about it," he explained. Mr. Smith simply
wanted to call the Board's attention to the letter. How you interpret his letter depends on your point
of view. However, on our legislation "he took the liberty to exaggerate somewhat," he said.
Mr. Clopper said that, from time to time, articles and letters related to subjects the Board has
discussed, appear in the newspapers. In some of those cases we have provided a response. "Does this
call for a response?" he asked. Howard Goldman recalled that the last time the Board was confronted
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 22
with this, they chose to ignore it. There was general agreement from the Board that it was probably
better to ignore it rather than call further attention to it.
Tom Sanders asked if there is someone on staff who reviews state and federal legislation related to
water issues. Mr. Smith said that Gale McGaha-Miller follows legislation for the Utility. He said that
there will be a number of water related items to watch when the legislature convenes in January.
Ms. McGaha-Miller met with the City's Legislative Review Committee today. The Committee is
looking at the legislative agenda for the City which is basically a guiding policy for what they
generally support and oppose in terms of legislation. "One new element that we propose to add for
the 1996 legislative agenda is some language about supporting the land trade legislation," she said.
In light of calls Council member Alan Apt has received from citizens and because of this letter, he
suggested that we include a more comprehensive explanation in the Legislative Agenda on this issue
and he also suggested that we put out a press release. "The Legislative Agenda is to be adopted by
City Council at their first meeting in December," she said, "so they need to get the language finalized
by next week." Mr. Smith said staff would handle the language for the Legislative Agenda. He
explained that City staff frequently take care of this kind of thing at a Council member's request.
Mr. Clopper asked if staff needs the Board's support on this, and Mr. Smith replied that the Board
has already given its support at today's meeting. He added that any time Board members wish to write
a letter to the paper in response to an item the Board has discussed, they are free to do so, as citizens,
as long as they don't indicate that they are writing as a representative of the Board.
PCB Contamination at Drinking Water Reservoirs
Mike Smith provided a letter of explanation and a fact sheet for Water Board members on the PCB
contamination. He asked Gale McGaha-Miller to give the background on the situation and answer
questions from the Board. She began by acknowledging that the Coloradoan did a pretty decent job
of presenting the facts on this situation, "other than the choice of a headline."
She went on to explain that in February of this year, staff inspected our two on site finished drinking
water reservoirs; both built in the 60s. At that time the caulk appeared to be deteriorating, so it was
decided that it should be replaced. They planned to do that replacement work during the winter of
1996 when the water demand is low. In April, the AWWA Journal published an article (Board
members received a copy) about a similar caulk replacement project in San Francisco. In that case
they stripped the caulk, blasted it, washed out the reservoirs through a drain line, and found out that
caulk had been impregnated with PCBs. As a result, they had that problem in the drain line because
they had improperly handled the material.
Since their reservoirs had been built about the same time as ours, we thought we had better test our
caulk before we did anything with it. That testing took quite awhile, and staff was stunned when the
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 23
tests confirmed 20% PCBs. "PCBs were considered a good chemical in the 60s," she reminded the
Board. "If we were to barrel it up in 55 gal. drums, it would probably take about 20 drums," she said.
As soon as staff found the PCBs, their first concern was the safety of the water. "We had done some
routine testing on the water and it had not shown PCBs. We also sent some fresh samples to a lab that
specializes in this analysis and it was less than their detection level of .01 ppb, which is five times
lower than the EPA limit for drinking water, so we were in good shape with the water.
Because we had done some routine draining of the water out of bottom of the reservoirs for
maintenance work, we also looked at our drain outlet, which drains into a normally dry ditch, for
contamination. Ms. McGaha-Miller collected soil samples, and some of those samples showed PCBs
which ranged from non -detect to over 200 ppm. By that time it was late summer and it had taken
several weeks for the testing. "We presume that the soil became contaminated because some of the
caulk flaked off, and when the reservoir was drained for routine cleaning, that was carried into the
soil. We took samples all along the stretch of the ditch which is about 130 ft. from the reservoir outlet
to a culvert at our property line. The water goes through a culvert to CSU property. We have not yet
tested the soil on the CSU property." She met with Earlie Thomas at CSU this afternoon and they
inspected the area and made some preliminary plans to test it.
She said there is no contamination in the ground water either. The Utility has a monitoring well near
the end of the ditch for the alluvial aquifer. That water is also non -detect for PCBs. The Utility has
been working with C112M Hill, with whom we have a contract to do several other projects. The have
experience in removing PCB caulk and properly disposing of it. They have come up with a work plan
to handle that whole situation with specially trained workers and special equipment to do the work
in the reservoirs and to also excavate the contaminated soil. It's likely the caulk will be incinerated
at a TSCA approved site, and the contaminated soil will be placed in a TSCA approved land fill. They
hope to have the work done in late January at a low water demand time, so we can take one reservoir
out of service, test to make sure it's clean, put it back into service, so they can do the other one.
Tom Sanders asked why Board members didn't know about this. Mr. Smith replied that Board
members weren't told because of a couple of reasons: No one was told except the City Manager,
since there was no danger to anyone. "We wanted to put a work plan together to present to EPA
before we told the press, and then we went to the press. That was what was recommended that we
do, and that's what we did. Had there been a danger to anyone, we would have come forward
immediately," he assured the Board. Instead of a reactive mode we operated with a proactive mode.
Paul Clopper related that sometimes reporters call him as president of the Water Board. "I was very
thankful after seeing the paper this morning that I wasn't called yesterday. Had I been, I would have
been embarrassed and uncomfortable to have to admit that I knew nothing about it." "Even if it was
harmless, PCBs are a red flag," Dr. Sanders contends, "and at least the Water Board president should
have known." With hindsight, Mr. Smith acknowledged that staff probably could have hand delivered
Water Board Minutes
November 17, 1995
Page 24
this information to Paul Clopper yesterday. Mr. Clopper agreed that he should receive the information
a day before it's released to the press. Dave Frick thinks that Board members should at least get the
press releases, but "I can understand the need to keep it under wraps, until the plans were all worked
out, but it would have been better to have a warning before it hit the newspaper," he said.
Howard Goldman wanted to know how a danger would be defined, and at what level of
contamination. "Had there been any indication that the water was contaminated and that level would
be the EPA standard of .05 ppb., we wouldn't have hesitated at that point, to tell everybody," Mr.
Smith and Ms. McGaha- Miller replied.
Alison Adams asked for a clarification. "You said that the only contamination of the soil occurred at
the drainage location, which implied that it came from caulking in the reservoir and out the drain. Did
it directly fall on the ground or did it go into the water and out the drain.?" In cleaning the reservoir
with high pressure fire hoses, the caulk was probably knocked out, Mr. Smith replied. The caulk fell
on the floor of the reservoir and was washed out through the drain. She also asked if there were any
caulk flakes suspended in the finished water at the reservoir; not dissolved PCBs in the water, but
actual caulk. "Highly, highly unlikely," Mr. Smith stressed. Ben Alexander said there had to have been
something in the order of between 6 and 9 billion gallons of water a year going through there since
the mid 60s.
Terry Podmore referred to the article in the paper where it said that it will cost about $300,000 for
the clean-up project. "Yes, to actually pull the caulk out and replace it," Mr. Smith replied. "That's
a pretty big hole in our contingency fund," Mr. Podmore continued. "It's part of the budget, because
the caulk removal was scheduled to be done anyway," Mr. Smith responded. "It's quite an involved
and detailed procedure," he added.
kyyus 81tLuyilagYY
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 P.M.
�C 21W�
Water Board Secretary