Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/21/1990Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 3:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Light and Power Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Neil Grigg, Vice President, Tom Sanders, Ray Herrmann, Tim Dow, Terry Podmore, Mark Casey, Tom Brown, Paul Clopper (alt.) Dave Stewart (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Members Absent Tom Moore, MaryLou Smith President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of November 16, 1990 were approved as distributed. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed the latest snow report. He reported that Carter Lake is now 64 % filled, Horsetooth is 59% filled and Granby is down to 40%. Mr. Bigham wanted to clarify one of the inaccuracies that appeared in recent articles in the newspaper. One article incorrectly stated that the District was planning to build a pipeline to the Nebraska state line. He explained that in the regionalization study, one of the potential ideas the District has considered, is the possibility of developing a treated waterline for supply along the front range to supplement the treatment plants. Somehow this was misinterpreted, he said. He also reported that the District Board should be acting on the regionalization study in January and either in February or March it will be made public. He continued by saying that the Bureau of Reclamation has implemented and will begin in January what most people would call a Section 7 Consultation, but is really a Section 7 Study on the Platte River system. They will do a 2-3 year study on the North Platte. They will then move to the South Platte, and on to the main stem. The District will participate very heavily Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 2 in the study because they will be developing a model, particularly on the North Platte system which will be used on the South Platte. The study will be concentrated on the east side of the mountains to South Platte, Nebraska. The final study will be on the main stem down to the Missouri River. He said a new group of endangered species has emerged in connection with the impact study. He understands an endangered fish has migrated from the Missouri into the platte. A Prairie Orchid and a particular kind of beetle in the area are also on the endangered list; along with the already specified whooping crane, plover and tern. The District will be supporting at least some manpower for those studies, he said. The primary function will be to see if there are any operational criteria that can be changed --either in any part of the river that would affect or improve the habitat and/or the endangered species. Mr. Bigham will be on one of those teams, so he will keep the Board informed as things progress. Mr. Bigham also reported that final reports on the Poudre project and the Little Thompson project will be completed soon. He announced that Judge Behrman from the water court in Greeley turned down the federal government's motion to amend their filings in the Federal Reserved Rights Case. "We feel this is a real plus," Mr. Bigham said. Cash In -Lieu -of Water Rights Dennis Bode explained that the cash rate, in -lieu -of water rights, is periodically adjusted to reflect the market price of water rights in this area. The agenda item summary sent with the Water Board packets stated that the price of Colorado -Big Thompson units normally sets the trend in prices, and there is normally enough market activity to establish the going rate. The last adjustment in the City's in -lieu -of rate was in August 1990 when it was adjusted from $1,100 to $1,300 per acre foot. Mr. Bode said that since that time the prices have continued to increase and the price of CBT water is currently in the range of $1,400 to $1,600 per unit. Therefore, staff has recommended that the Water Board recommend to City Council a change in the cash in -lieu -of water -rights from $1,300 to $1,500 per acre foot. A graph attached to the agenda summary illustrated the long term trend in the prices of CBT units, in North Poudre Irrigation shares, and the City's cash in -lieu -of rate. Mr. Bode suggested that in order to keep close to the price of CBT water we should increase the in -lieu -of price to $1500. • Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the current Water Intelligence Monthly that had just been distributed, listed the cost of CBT water in the $1500 range. The previous issue quoted it from $1400-$1600. Mr. Bode confirmed that the prices he has seen are in that range. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that the in -lieu -of rate be adjusted too $1500 per acre foot as per the staff recommendation. Tim Dow seconded the motion. Discussion followed. It is Tom Sanders' opinion that it is preferable to have CBT water rather than money. Therefore, he wanted to raise the in -lieu -of rate to $1600 in order to give developers incentive to provide the City with CBT or other water rights instead of money. "It's hard to get developers to turn over CBT water," Mr. Bode responded, "because there are other sources of water available." Dr. Sanders asked if the City couldn't just refuse the other kinds of water. Mr. Bode stated that we can't do that under the present policy. Mr. Caulfield said that "we have the ratios that pretty well lock us in." Mike Smith added that the City has said it will accept those waters, and unless we make a conscious decision that we aren't going to take certain waters, we must abide by the current policy. Mr. Caulfield asked if staff is satisfied with the ratios or do we need to take another look at them? Mr. Bode replied that "with our Southside Ditch transfers, we could get into some discussions about adjusting some of those for the future." However, our recent thinking has been that it is preferable to have the cash which gives us the opportunity to purchase the water we need, and we have a little more flexibility in getting the supplies we want. Tim Dow asked what the recent experience has been in whether the developer provides water or cash, say in the last 6-12 months. "We have received more cash within the last year or two than we did a few years back," Mr. Bode replied. There is quite a lot of development now that is being done in areas that have already been satisfied; probably back 2, 3 or 4 years ago. As a result, we are getting cash and some water certificates that were issued several years ago. "We have had very little actual water stock turned over in the last year or so," he concluded. Tom Brown observed that we always appear to be lower than the price when it's rising and higher than the price when it's falling, so we expect to get cash when it's rising and water when it's falling. "That's part of the rationale for trying to keep it a little below the market price in terms of CBT water," Mr. Bode responded. Some of the other stock, of course, is priced significantly lower, so if somebody wants to take the initiative, they can still buy Southside ditch stock or something else and turn it over. "We find that a number of developers that just have Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 4 a few houses, prefer to turn in the cash, and not even bother trying to find water stock," he continued. Paul Clopper asked what kind of volumes we are talking about for 1990. Mr. Bode replied that a little over $100,000 in cash has been turned in. Mark Casey commented that he is sympathetic to Tom Sanders' view in the sense that if you were looking at it strictly from a business standpoint, and with the trends right now, it looks as though it would be a good time to buy water. At the same time, when we have excess water as we do now, we can basically lease that out to cover the assessments. Mr. Casey would have a preference towards cash, given the amount of water we have now. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the City's policy has always been not to lead the market, "plus the fact that we generally go 2 or 3 months before worrying about it." He emphasized that the City has not wanted to be subject to criticism for leading the market. However, maybe we ought to look at changing the cash rate more than we do, he added. The question was called. The Board voted unanimously to recommend that the cash in -lieu -of rate be adjusted from the current $1300 to $1500 per acre foot as per the staff recommendation. Update: Wastewater Master Plan Committee Mark Casey, one of the three Water Board members on the Committee, reported that the Wastewater Committee met on December 12th. He and the three council members on the committee were in general agreement with the staff recommendations on the PIF rates. (The two other Water Board members were unable to attend.) He also pointed out that the material prepared by staff was very helpful to the Committee, and the analysis was very done well. One issue worth noting was the sentiment on the part of the council members that there be negotiated PIFs. At certain levels that was included in the plan, he said. There would be a standard rate, but if a user wanted to appeal the rate and could prove that their effluent was weaker or there was less of it, there would be some opportunity to negotiate that, Mr. Casey explained. Mr. Casey believes that when looking at other PIFs vis-a-vis other front range cities, it is useful to look at the water costs, raw water as well as the treated water costs, when comparing PIFs. Comparing PIFs alone just shows part of the picture. It is advisable to look at the total picture, he stressed. Tom Sanders asked who will do the evaluation for negotiations. It will be done by the Utility, Mike Smith replied. Do you have the manpower to do that? Dr. Sanders continued. There will Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 5 actually be more work on the part of the industries to provide information to the Utility showing that their waste is in fact lower strength than the typical, Mr. Smith explained. Mr. Caulfield recalled that at the last Water Board meeting staff said that only about 5-10 of these kinds of situations occur each year. That is correct, Mr. Smith said. Paul Clopper suggested that staff may want to include some sort of vehicle or mechanism to validate the representation of a study for an industry wishing to negotiate their PIF. The industry you are studying may be fine tuning their processes for the week or two that you are monitoring, he said. Can you put a monitor on the end of the pipe? Mr. Caulfield asked. With the larger industries, we have monitoring manholes where we monitor the waste, Mr. Smith responded. Being able to come in on a random basis is the key, Mr. Clopper stressed. Tim Dow recalled that at the last meeting the Board discussed asking the Council to consider the PIF issue in view of economic development policies, etc. That might go beyond the negotiability feature depending on the strength of the discharges, he said. It seems to him that is still on the table for Council's consideration. Tom Sanders wondered if the Wastewater Committee discussed the equity question related to residential versus commercial. The issue of equity wasn't discussed specifically, Mr. Casey replied, but as he understands it, the rates that are being recommended are intended to reflect the actual cost of service. From that standpoint, it is intended to be equitable, he said. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that it is his understanding from the staff document, that previously the City did not charge according to the strength of the waste; now it does and that makes the difference. In other words, the strength of the waste is a key factor in the allocation. Mr. Smith announced that at their last meeting, the Council passed the water PIFs on first reading. There was some concern from the development community about increasing development costs, etc., but "the Council seems to be tuned in to the need to do it," he observed. They appear to agree with the cost of service principle, he added. With very little discussion, they passed the increase in water PIFs 7-0, he concluded. At this point, Mark Casey moved that the Water Board accept the staff report recommending the changes in the Wastewater PIFs to include the provision of negotiating the PIFs if a company appeals the rates and can prove the strength of their effluent is weaker or of less volume. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 6 Mike Smith clarified that the code would read that the rates could not be negotiated below the base level. In no way are their wastes going to have a strength less than normal domestic strength waste, he emphasized. He also pointed out that some of the wastes would be included under the pretreatment program. He acknowledged, when asked, that all the possibilities for hazardous wastes may not be covered. Tom Sanders wanted to know if the code is written to consider only BOD and Suspended Solids. He believes that looking at the overall characteristics of the waste should be used for assessment. Mr. Smith explained that the table that EPA has published, sets the standards for typical industries for BOD and Suspended Solids. Metals or other toxics are regulated through the industrial pretreatment program. Mr. Caulfield brought up the case of CSU discharges. Mr. Smith said that CSU has been discharging wastes that they should not be putting into the system. The City's pretreatment people are currently working with them on that problem, he said. Mr. Caulfield called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to accept the motion as stated. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for the month of November, our water use was 97 % of what had been projected. He said it is interesting to note that precipitation was slightly above average; .87 inches compared with the .62 average. Temperatures averaged 5 degrees above average. As John Bigham pointed out earlier, a cold snap is probably needed here to bring things back to normal. Mr. Bode said that an inch of moisture was measured at Joe Wright Reservoir within the last week. Committee Resorts Legislative and Finance Committee Chairman Tim Dow reported that the committee will begin meeting as the legislative agenda gets underway. He expects they probably will have a report in February, if not in January. Conservation and Public Education Now that the water PIFs have been passed by the City Council, the Water Demand Management Committee will begin discussions on specific conservation issues. The Committee should be meeting soon. 0 • Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 7 Other Business Tom Sanders asked how many new homes and volunteers have been metered since the new metering legislation has been enacted. Mike Smith replied that about 80 knew homes have had meters installed and the volunteer program won't begin until after the first of the year. There are approximately 100 volunteers signed up at this point. Mr. Caulfield asked what happened to the suggestion from the Water Board that staff consult with the City planning people and the development people regarding the PIFs. Mr. Smith responded that staff has had several conversations with the planning director and the economic development director and they seem to be satisfied with the way things are going. Molly Nortier pointed out that staff from the planning department were at the Wastewater Committee meeting as well. Tom Sanders asked why Woodward Governor didn't select Fort Collins to expand their plant. Mr. Smith explained that up to 2 days before the announcement, local people from the company intended to expand in Fort Collins, and were pleased with what the City was offering. They also were impressed with the major effort expended on their behalf by the City. However, their corporate headquarters manager decided he wanted to have a different address for the new facility, so he made the decision to build in Loveland. Mark Casey recently attended a Water Marketing Seminar in Denver courtesy of the City of Fort Collins. The seminar was sponsored by Water Strategists, the same company that produces Water Intelligence Monthly. He thought it was interesting that they were looking at Colorado to provide a framework to help solve California's water problems. In California, instead of having water shares freely traded, they have a couple of big providers, so they are considering the free market concept, and Colorado's concept in particular, he continued. In fact the CBT project was mentioned specifically as providing a model for solving some of their problems, he added. Mr. Caulfield explained that California's water law is very complicated, in that it is both riparian and appropriation doctrine (as Colorado's), as well as going back to Spanish rights. Neil Grigg commented that the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute network recently completed a study of water transfer activity in all the western states. There are a lot more transfers in Colorado than in any of the adjoining states, he said. In California there have been very few transfers, and Wyoming has had none. He said that report is available from the Natural Resources Law Center in Boulder if anyone is interested in it. Mark Casey said that he received a number of handouts from the seminar if anyone wants to look at them. Neil Grigg also noticed in the Water Intelligence Monthly, that the proceedings of the seminar are available to be purchased. Water Board Minutes December 21, 1990 Page 8 Tom Brown suggested a new book that just came out by Mark Reasoner, the author of Cadillac Desert. The new book is essentially about opportunities for water marketing in the West. Since there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 772e-4zil 21en=� Water Board Secretary