HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/20/1990Water Board Minutes
Friday, July 20, 1990
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Light and Power Conference Room
700 Wood Street
Members Present
Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Tom
Moore, Tom Brown Terry Podmore, Neil Grigg, Tim Dow, Mark Casey, Paul
Clopper, (alt.)
Staff
Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander, Tom Gallier, Keith Elmund, Wendy
Williams, Dave Meyer, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City
Attorney
Guests
John Bigham - Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District
Dorothy Huff - Observer, League of Women Voters of Larimer County
Members Absent
MaryLou Smith, Dave Stewart (alt.)
President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were
discussed:
Minutes
The minutes of June 15, 1990 were approved as distributed with the following
correction: The minutes stated that Terry Podmore was appointed to a second
4-year term, when in fact he had completed two years of the unexpired 4-year
term of a Water Board member who had resigned.
Henry Caulfield announced that Dave Stewart was re -appointed to the Water
Board to occupy the alternate position that the Council had left vacant in
anticipation of the elimination of alternate positions. Mr. Caulfield plans
to not re -apply when his term expires in 1991, so Dave Stewart may be
appointed to fill that regular position.
As Mr. Caulfield understands it, the Council plans to eliminate alternate
positions for boards and commissions, and when the Charter is changed to
accomplish that, the Water Board will then be composed of 12 regular board
positions instead of 10 plus 2 alternates. The Charter will also be changed
in such a way that there will be a sixteen year limit for Water Board
members. Currently there is no limit to the number of years that a Water
Board member can serve. When the Charter change is proposed, there will be
a draft for boards and Commissions to review.
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 2
John Bigham brought copies of "Water News," a NCWCD publication, for those
who don't already receive them.
At the last District Board meeting the City of Fort Lupton petitioned to be
included in the District and Sub -district boundaries. The Board of
Directors voted to approve that inclusion. The Sub -district is automatic,
while the District inclusion is subject to the consent of the Department of
the Interior. Erie, Hudson and Nunn are all in the process of petitioning
for inclusion as well.
By the end of June the District had pumped 14,520 AF of Windy Gap water, and
they were able to cycle all four of the pumps. As of July 19 the District
received the absolute decree of 600 cfs from the Windy Gap pumping plant.
As of July 18, Granby Reservoir reached 49% of its active capacity and the
reservoir inflow and storage have in fact peaked. From now on it won't
receive any more than the tail end of the run-off. It only reached 220,000
AF of actual water that can be pulled, plus the dead storage which can't be
pumped.
The District has had several requests for an additional quota. After a
lengthy discussion, the directors voted not to increase the quota from 50%,
primarily because of the District's attempt to conserve some of the storage.
The local storage continues to be about 117% of average whereas CBT is down
substantially, so the District is trying to keep that as a backup for the
coming year. They anticipate that Granby will be down close to dead storage
by the end of the year for moving the water across. The recent rains have
occurred primarily on the east slope, so the west slope storage has not been
helped much.
Update on Sludge Disposal Options.
Wastewater Manager Tom Gallier distributed a confidential memorandum that
has been transmitted to the City Council. It brings the Council up to date
on some movement that has occurred on the land acquisition which Mr. Gallier
discussed with the Board at the June meeting. Last month staff didn't
expect that to happen. Mr. Gallier anticipates that there will be more
information within the next 2-3 weeks. He was not able to go into detail
about the contents of the memo unless the Board went into executive session.
Direction from the Board is not necessary at this point, he said. Once the
Council has the opportunity to look at the memo, staff may be going to them
in a work session within the next few weeks. Within the next 60-90 days,
there will be some action one way or another from Council, he concluded.
Amendment to Anheuser-Busch Master Agreement
Board members had received an agenda item summary in their packets
describing the proposed changes to the master agreement. Staff recommended
that the Water Board forward a favorable recommendation to the Council on
the proposed changes. Staff is comfortable that they can make the changes
work without any problems.
Water Board Minutes •
July 20, 1990
Page 3
Tom Sanders was concerned about the change in the pH. "If we give in on the
pH, what is A-B giving us as far as not sending a large flow in a short
period of time?" he asked. Tom Gallier responded that in the interim we get
an agreement from them not to load us beyond the summer loadings during the
winter period. That allows staff to buffer the pH and handle it with
domestic waste with no problem. "Do you have that in writing?" Dr. Sanders
asked. "Yes," Mr. Gallier replied.
A-B and the City were able to come up with an alternative as part of the
master plan to provide for pH control in the Plant No. 2 expansion.
Basically the north and south plants will be combined, and using a coupled
treatment system, we can get additional buffering capacity out of the
expanded treatment facilities. A-B has committed to paying at least their
fair share in doing that.
Tom Sanders proposed that a clause be added to the agreement that stipulates
that if this doesn't work, A-B could add more money to make it work or
change the pH again.
"My interpretation of the master agreement," Mr. Gallier began, "is if we
have a problem treating their waste, we can go back into the master
agreement and force changes on them to resolve the problem." In addition, a
few months ago, some very complex calculations were done by J.M. Montgomery
on nutrient balance utilizing their expert on brewery waste. It became
clear very quickly that by combining waste streams, our domestic load
provides more than enough nutrient.
Dr. Sanders argued that the co -mixing was going to solve the problem two
years ago, and it didn't.
Mr. Gallier explained that the co -mixing of the domestic waste with the A-B
waste in the south plant, does provide most of the nutrient we need in all
but the highest load situations. He added that the scenario of combining
their waste load with all of our domestic load --not just a portion of it --in
the expanded headworks facility will take care of it. He feels comfortable
with that scenario.
In January A-B exceeded the limits and the City was in violation, Tom
Sanders pointed out. Mr. Gallier confirmed that the City had 3 violations
to its NPDES permit that month. A-B had a contract limit of 17,000 lbs. of
bio-chemical oxygen and exceeded that on 2 days in excess of 50,000 lbs.
At this point Attorney Paul Eckman arrived and explained what he found in
the master agreement as far as temporary discontinuance of service. "The
City may temporarily discontinue wastewater service under 3 circumstances:"
1) If we are under a court order to do so;
2) If the Company's waste characteristics exceed the parameters set out in
pounds and that is where the pH parameters are set out, to the extent that
the City, through no fault of its own, is unable to comply with stream
standards or suffers excessive damage to its wastewater treatment or related
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 4
facilities. "In that paragraph, we would no longer be able to terminate
wastewater service as long as they complied with the new pH parameter," Mr.
Eckman pointed out.
3) The City, even though A-B may be complying with the new more lenient
standard, can still terminate service temporarily in order to prevent loss
of biological treatment capability due to the existence of toxic substances
in the wastewater discharge at the plant. "The term toxic substances
limits us pretty much," he said.
Ray Herrmann asked if there is anything about exceeding flows. Tom Sanders
replied that it only talks about "messing up the biological system, not
about exceeding stream standards." Paul Clopper concurred that it doesn't
really address the umbrella standard that Tom Sanders is looking for.
Tom Gallier said it is important to note that there are two issues they are
concerned about: 1) pH and 2) nutrients. In his opinion, the issue of
nutrients does come under that umbrella requirement for them to provide
facilities to treat the waste as they are needed. The issue of nutrients
was addressed in the initial design and construction improvements at
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 by diversion of side streams, and that was
supposed to, in the design, provide the nutrients that are needed in that
system in an economical way. In reality, they didn't work under full load
conditions because the nutrients couldn't be fed under an even enough rate;
it was all or nothing.
A-B recognized that and did agree, in the pH control facility project,
to include additional funds to cover that. "Historically, in our
relationship with them, we haven't had a problem with them saying 'it's not
our problem,"' Mr. Gallier assured the Board.
Relative to the issue of the pH itself, in terms of the change from 6-9 to
5-9, we have operated very well since January of 1989, Mr. Gallier stated.
He can't foresee any problem as long as they are within that range of 5-9,
and the 5-9 is consistent with our code and with EPA standards.
Tom Sanders pointed out that 5-9 is just the mean. Mr. Gallier said it's
not exactly the mean. What is a violation? he asked. When you take grab
samples on a major contributor, if they are outside of from 5-9, that's a
violation. What do you do with those industries that have basically
continuous on line pH monitoring? It's a question we have to address to EPA
ourselves because we in fact have on line continuous pH monitoring, Mr.
Gallier related.
Tom Sanders said that brings up another point. When you define a limit you
have to define a statistic you are using. Probably the variance is more
important than the mean. "If it's such a non -issue then it shouldn't hurt
to have an appendage that says, if for some reason we were not able to cope
with it, that we have the option to return to the stricter pH level," he
argued. The 5-9 level is fine if A-B maintains a continuous stream and
never changes their load, he said.
Water Board Minutes• •
July 20, 1990
Page 5
Tom Gallier pointed out that it is addressed in the amendment change and in
the pretreatment language.
Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor Dave Meyer explained that there are
federal regulations that allow for excursions beyond the permitted range for
pH for those dischargers who continuously monitor for pH. Those apply
specifically to NPDES permits. The regulations in brief allow a total time
of excursion of 7 hours and 26 minutes per calendar month which happens to
be 1% of the time. It also limits any one excursion to no more than 60
minutes.
"Are you talking about the effluent going into a stream?" Tom Sanders asked.
"That's right," Mr. Meyer replied. Dr. Sanders said he is referring to the
operational aspects of the process.
How urgent is it for you to get this agreed to today? Mr. Caulfield wanted
to know. There could be an issue with Council approval on the master plan
and proceeding with it, since the master plan has an assumption in it that
A-B will contribute $2.6 million towards construction costs, Tom Gallier
replied. Linda Burger added that the master plan is going to Council on
August 7.
I believe our agreement with A-B is contingent upon our proceeding to talk
to EPA about these changes and the pre-treatment permit we have with them,
and also proceeding along with this," Mr. Gallier stated. Ms. Burger
stressed that it is critical to go forward at least if we are to have the
wastewater plant online when we need it. "We are at the tail end of any
breathing room we may have had on this issue," she added.
Dave Meyer said they would need EPA approval to make that change and "we
anticipated that we could either do that in A-B's industrial discharge
permit, or through the ordinance." The change from 6 to 5 we can do at our
own discretion as far as EPA is concerned.
Dave Meyer brought up another issue. The federal pretreatment regulations
that govern the City's program require that action can be taken against an
industrial discharger at anytime if their discharge causes upset, or
interference or pass through at the treatment plant. Paul Eckman confirmed
that this requirement is also in the City code.
Dr. Sanders asked if the.master agreement is in conflict with that. Mr.
Caulfield asked Paul Eckman if he can arrange it so Tom Sanders' concerns
are taken care of. "That would be better than relying on the code which says
we can charge back any damages against someone when they are not in
violation of the code discharge requirements," Mr. Eckman responded. "If we
change to a 5 instead of a 6 and they are in compliance with that, it would
be difficult to argue that they are the cause of the injury when they
haven't violated our code."
Tom Gallier contends that if the City is going to have a problem with A-B
waste, in his opinion, it's not going to be because their permit limit is at
5 versus 6 on the pH; it would most likely be another issue. "I'm not going
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 8
until we have the results of the Northern District study of the availability
of water and the South Platte study, before making up our minds on the
stance we want to take.
Neil Grigg pointed out that what we really need is the capability to manage
water better on a regional basis. That could accomplish the same thing as a
Water Bank, and the Northern District, being the regional District, could be
a means of accomplishing that.
Mr. Caulfield said he was merely pointing out that there is the point of
view of keeping the Denver area out of Northern Colorado and one that claims
that there may be a compatible way of dealing with the Denver metro area in
terms of water.
Tom Sanders said that he perceived a unanimity of the regional group
regarding the Water Bank idea, in that we start controlling the destiny of
Northern Colorado water instead of allowing it to be controlled by Denver.
Update: Demand Management Committee
Tom Moore reported that basically the Committee at its last meeting decided
to use PIF funds to finance the installation of meters in existing homes.
At the next meeting the Committee will discuss the actual implementation of
the process. At succeeding meetings, they will discuss rates, further
conservation measures and the overall view of demand management.
Mr. Caulfield asked if the Demand Management Committee will be taking up
other issues besides metering. The answer was definitely. Dennis Bode said
that one of the things they want to discuss is water conservation. The rate
question will also be considered.
Environmental Management Plan
Henry Caulfield was invited to attend a meeting on the City's proposed
Environmental Management Plan. In the plan a number of water issues have
emerged from several public meetings, open houses and meetings with various
boards and commissions conducted in the City by the Natural Resources
Division, regarding various aspects of the plan.
Linda Burger distributed copies of a public comment document to the group,
in which pages 10-15 list the water comments.
Ms. Burger also prepared a draft of problem statements and some discussion
about each issue; also what other City departments are impacted and an
attempt at a general strategy. She said that most of the issues that were
raised are ones that the Utility is already working on. For example, the
Utility has just completed a major study on wastewater treatment. The two
new major efforts that she outlined are: 1) An evaluation of the
environmental impact of the Thornton Plan; and 2) The need for a drinking
water quality policy. There has been some interest on the part of Mayor
Kirkpatrick of having a policy developed.
If the Board has any comments or suggestions relating to these documents,
please contact Ms. Burger within the next few days.
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 6
to tell you that it can't happen --it's a possibility with any major industry
that we serve," he stressed. Conditions can change.
Dr. Sanders argued that since A-B is a major contributor, a small change
with them would be significant. "By virtue of the fact that A-B is going
into essentially a dedicated pipeline, I might disagree with that, Mr.
Gallier replied, "once we have completed the expansion, and unless they
violate the permit."
What concerns Mr. Gallier at this point is that the Utility has reached an
agreement with A-B for a substantial infusion of cash on a project that will
benefit them, but will also benefit us significantly. Tom Sanders insisted
that the City needs to take control, and he respectfully disagreed with Mr.
Gallier.
What action did we take when A-B was in massive violation? We notified them
of the problem by telephone, and told them if the problem was not resolved
quickly, we would shut them off, Mr. Gallier replied. He added that A-B
understood clearly what almost happened in that situation in 1989, and that
the publicity from that incident was very damaging. They took some very
serious action at the brewery and corporate -wide to see that it doesn't
happen again.
When the expansion occurs, is the pH issue far less likely to cause
problems? Mr. Caulfield asked. Yes, Mr. Gallier replied. Mr. Caulfield
also asked how long we are likely to be in jeopardy with the pH change and
with respect to Tom Sanders' concerns. As long as A-B maintains their
agreement, which is in writing, not to send loadings in the winter beyond
the lower loading that they are allowed to send in the summer, and until
such time as the expansion project is completed, which will probably be in
late '93. At that point, during the winter, they will be able to send their
contract loadings which are higher. They are agreeing to step back on the
loadings until then.
Ray Herrmann contends that if A-B causes us to go into violation, no matter
what the problem is, we can shut them down. He thinks we are protected
through the ordinances and the other regulations. Paul Eckman added, "as
long as we can prove they caused the violation."
Environmental Services Manager Keith Elmund believes that the issue is being
over -complicated. "They have a discharge permit that they must comply with;
they also have federal treatment standards that they must comply with. If
we have a problem at the wastewater treatment plant, we already have
recourse," he concluded.
Paul Eckman said there was a question of which takes precedence, the master
agreement or the code. The master agreement by its language, which was
approved by ordinance and by the voters, takes precedence over the code with
respect to any areas of conflict. "We found a number of provisions in the
code that would give us comfort, but that doesn't help much when there is a
conflict," he explained.
0
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 7
What is the nature of this document that we are discussing today? Mr.
Caulfield asked. Mr. Eckman replied that it is an amendment to the master
agreement. There were basically two substantive paragraphs in the agreement:
1) The change from a pH of 6 to 5; 2) Conditional modification: "The
aforesaid modification --from 6 to 5--to article 6 is expressly conditioned
upon Company reducing its winter time wastewater discharge loadings in the
amount of until the permanent pH control nutrient feed facilities have
been fully constructed and are placed in operation at the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 2. Accordingly, in the event that the Company should
fail to reduce its wintertime wastewater loadings as specified herein, until
said permanent facilities are adopted and placed in operation, the third
modification agreement shall become null and void and of no effect."
After having heard the language of the amendment to the Master Agreement,
Mr. Caulfield asked Tom Sanders if, in terms of the narrow issue that is
presented to the Board, namely approval of this modification to the master
agreement, would he like to make a motion?
Dr. Sanders was then willing to move that the Water Board recommend that the
City Council accept the modifications to the Master Agreement. After a
second from Ray Herrmann; a vote indicated unanimous approval of the motion.
Henry Caulfield reported that overall the regional gathering was a good
meeting. There was some discussion of the Thornton issue but not in any
detail since there was not an attorney present. Mr. Caulfield thinks the
general position is that Greeley and Loveland are generally supportive of
the Northern District in terms of its activities with the Thornton case.
The City of Fort Collins has not taken a position yet. He noted that the
Fort Collins Water Board will take up the Thornton question in executive
session at its August meeting with an attorney present. Water Board members
with conflicts should probably plan to leave the meeting when that issue is
discussed, he said.
The Board will also discuss the recommendation they will make to the City
Council with respect to sending advice to the Northern District supporting
or not supporting their activities. The District would like to hear that
the City supports their activities relating to Thornton. Tom Moore contends
that it is time for the City to resolve that it supports what the District
is doing.
The Water Board Thornton Strategy Committee has gone over the material staff
provided, so the Board will have their counsel on that information.
Furthermore, with respect to the joint meeting, Mr. Caulfield related that
Bill Farr from Greeley thinks one of the eventual roles of Northern Colorado
will be the transferring of water to the Denver area, and bringing it back
treated to be used for agriculture. Therefore, the water bank question
doesn't inspire him. Mr. Caulfield related further that at another meeting,
Mr. Farr indicated that we shouldn't worry about the Water Bank question
Water Board Minutes•
July 20, 1990
Page 9
_•
The other document she provided was a memorandum that Rich Shannon prepared
and sent to the City Council and the City Manager which outlines some of the
environmental projects that have been undertaken by the Water Utility and
other departments within Utility Services over the last few years.
It appears that some kind of presentation on the Environmental Management
Plan will be made to the City Council at a work session on August 28. It is
Ms. Burger's understanding that Water & Wastewater staff and Water Board
members, particularly the chairman, will have an opportunity to review
whatever is prepared and sent to Council, and approve it before it goes
forward. Probably any decisions that might be made by Council will not
happen until after the budget process.
Mr. Caulfield understood that only the process would be reported to the
Council on the 28th and that no substantive issues will be presented. "I
will hold them to it, as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Caulfield asserted. Ms.
Burger said the intent of staff is to present the kind of information she
distributed in her draft. Mr. Caulfield stressed that these issues need to
be considered as a Board before they are taken up by the Council.
Staff Reports
Treated Water Production Summary
Everyone received copies of the treated water production summary. Dennis
Bode reported that, for the month of June, water use was above average. So
far in July it has been cooler, but "we are still running a little above
average," he said. However, use has tapered off and the recent rains could
slow it down even more.
Water Ouality Report
Ben Alexander, Water Production Manager, responded to the concern about the
what he understood to be the possibility of viral contamination of the water
in Horsetooth Reservoir and the passing of viruses in the treatment process.
Mr. Caulfield explained that recently there was an article in the Co7oradoan
about the quality of the water in Horsetooth Reservoir and Mayor Kirkpatrick
called Mike Smith about it. The director of recreation for the County
apparently said that if there was a question about the quality of the water
at Horsetooth, the City was going to have to pay to clean it up because the
County is not going to cut down on recreation at the reservoir; so it isn't
just a virus question, Mr. Caulfield said. The Mayor was concerned if there
was an oil spill, what would happen to our intake of water into the system.
Mr. Alexander began his presentation by saying that he and Keith Elmund,
Environmental Services Manager, and others on staff have been curious about
the issue of the recreational use of the reservoir and the apparent conflict
with treated water use.
Everyone whose drinking water supplies come from bodies of water that are
also used for recreation, faces these problems. In some places it is common
policy to fence off those waters and not allow them for recreational use.
"We probably will never see that kind of policy here, with a few
exceptions," he predicted.
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 10
Horsetooth is, by anybody's standards, an excellent surface water source, he
continued. However, the recreational activities and development in that area
continue to increase.
Mr. Alexander said that we are learning more and are able to measure
more about contamination of water than we have in the past. As a result,
staff determined that it was time to do a background study to get a
benchmark to monitor from, to see if the quality of water at Horsetooth is
being affected by these other uses.
The study has been in progress for 3 years by contract with some folks at
CSU, who monitor the quality of the water in the reservoir. When the
inter -governmental agreement went to Council last time, the news media
became interested in this issue and they did some interviews with people who
are managing recreation at the reservoir. It appeared to be a
confrontational issue and it really isn't, Mr. Alexander assured the Board.
Staff wants to know what is occurring at the Reservoir and if there is
deterioration happening, we want to document our case. If it is fine for
recreational use, and we are reassured that it is, we need to continue to
gather that background. In addition, if necessary, we need to try to
influence how that watershed is being managed, "but," he emphasized, "right
now all we are doing is monitoring."
Specific to the ability of our processes to remove viruses, contaminants or
other pathogens: they behave as other particles in the water, and they are
normally removed with our particle removal process. We do go a step further
than many other places do in evaluating that because of what we have learned
from our research efforts in collaboration with the AWWA and CSU, and the
pilot studies that have been done at our plants. We fine tune and optimize
our processes to achieve a high degree of particle removal.
He then took the group through a few slides and overheads. Once a month, he
said, Poudre River water, the Horsetooth draw and our finished water samples
are taken routinely and sent to CH Diagnostic which is Dr. Chuck Nibbler's
lab. He does the Giardia work, but he also analyzes for other particles and
the concentrations of those particles in the water. "The analyses
demonstrate that we are in pretty good shape with our water supply," Mr.
Alexander stressed.
Tom Sanders asked if analyses are being done on hydrocarbons, lead
additives, etc. Mr. Alexander replied that Keith Elmund runs most of those
tests at his lab. Tests were done twice in June and nothing was detected at
any of the sites, he said.
Mr. Alexander assured the Board that what staff is responding to is how
effective our treatment processes are, and are we doing everything we can to
get the most efficiency and the best work out of our plant with the tools
that we have? Right now we have the technologically best plant that we know
how to build, he emphasized.
Water Board Minutes •
July 20, 1990
Page 11
Is there legislation that controls the sanitation facilities in the boats on
Horsetooth Reservoir? Henry Caulfield asked. The Division of Wildlife is
the regulatory agency responsible for boating in Colorado, Mr. Alexander
said, but he has no idea who controls the sanitation. Neil Grigg commented
that there is legislation being contemplated on that issue in other parts of
the country.
What about oil spills on the reservoir? Dr. Elmund's work has shown that we
have some of the petroleum products in the surface samples, but we sample at
depths as well and our intake is at about 90 feet. "We have never found any
unusual background of those at that level," Mr. Alexander replied.
Does staff ever get together with the recreation people or about sanitation
with the Division of Wildlife to try to minimize what gets into the lake?
"Not with the recreation folks," Mr. Alexander responded, "but I have
discussed it with the County Health Department. We don't see anything in the
data yet that indicates there is a problem. If there were a problem we would
jump right into it," he concluded.
"This is one of the reasons we would like to take a look at a drinking water
policy," Linda Burger said, "in order to address some of the questions that
you are raising, and see whether some action should be taken."
Mr. Caulfield asked staff to look into the question of water quality
standards; whether we should pursue that question, and if so how, and report
to a future meeting of the Board.
Water Certificates
At the June Water Board meeting staff brought a request from a member of the
Fort Collins business community to sell his water certificates, equal to 95
AF, to the City. He acquired the certificates several years ago for a
development in which a part was never developed. His offer to sell them was
at a considerable discount compared to what the price of water is today.
Staff was asked to investigate for the next meeting, the legal aspects
regarding water certificates in general and to research what the actual
market for certificates is in Fort Collins. If it turned out to be a good
offer from a market standpoint, and there was not a legal hurdle, the Board
was supposed to vote on the offer at the July meeting. Recently the water
certificate issue became moot as far as the 95 AF is concerned, when another
party purchased the certificates.
Nevertheless, Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman investigated the legal
aspects of water certificates and determined that there is not a problem as
long as it was clear up front when the City accepted water shares from
developers, and issued the certificates, that the owner of the water was not
expecting that the City would either give them their water back or buy the
certificates back.
It is a certificate that remains valuable and the City will accept it and
use it in satisfaction of its raw water requirement, and it is freely
transferrable on the market place. Furthermore, just because the nature of
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 12
development has made it a little less saleable, doesn't make it an illegal
or inequitable deal. He believes that the City can remain with the policy
from a legal standpoint, although from a political sense or a matter of
policy, we may want to change it, he advised.
Arapahoe and Roosevelt Forest Water Rights
Mr. Caulfield referred to a section in the June Windy Gap Committee minutes
where Mr. Hobbs, the Counsel for the Northern District, reported that "the
Forest Plan for the Arapahoe and Roosevelt National Forests was in the
revision process. It was the position of the Subdistrict and the District
that all existing water rights and structures must be preserved in the
National Forest, and that their operational maintenance must be respected.
Mr. Hobbs stated that any entity having structures or water rights in the
National Forest should be aware of this plan revision process." Linda
Burger said she is in the process of reviewing the Forest Service Management
Plan which she just received a short time ago.
Committee Reports
Water Supply Committee
Chairman Neil Grigg distributed two reports from the Water Resources
Research Institute which he heads. One report summarizes 25 years of
research, training and scientific publications from the Institute, and the
other publication was called, Colorado's Water: Climate, Supply and Drought.
He thought these would be of interest to Water Board members and staff.
Legislative and Finance Committee
Tom Sanders reported that the Committee had a budget meeting recently. They
had reviewed the budget material that staff had provided and found it to be
reasonable as far as allocations are concerned.
Two concerns came out during the discussion and one was the cost of
installing meters in existing homes. The cost comes to about $200,000 per
year until the year 2009. Dr. Sanders doesn't consider that to be an
insignificant amount of money.
The other budget item that he questioned was a proposal for the National
Heritage Corridor for a total of about $100,000: $12,000 for 1991, $28,000
for '92, $29,000 for '93, and $30,000 for '94. "I didn't think it was going
to cost us anything," he.remarked. He also asked why the Utility is paying
for National Heritage costs when, in his opinion, we aren't "getting
anything out of it."
Linda Burger explained that she was asked by the Utilities Services Director
to include those amounts in the capital budget for the NHC. As she
understands it, Kari VanMeter, who was formerly in the Planning Department,
has been assigned a full time role in managing the NHC. She now reports to
a committee of Department heads who have an interest in the NHC, Ms. Burger
continued. It is her understanding that the money is being requested to
contribute to Kari VanMeter's salary and to provide funds for capital
expenditures which will be identified at some later time.
Water Board Minutes• •
July 20, 1990
Page 13
Mr. Caulfield brought the Board up to date on the NHC, having been a member
of the Task Force. As he mentioned at the last meeting, the City
contributed $10,000; the NCWCD, $5,000; Larimer County, $5,000 and CSU,
$5,000, for a total of $25,000 to the National Park Service to prepare a
technical report. The report will help them decide whether this proposal
for a NHC is of "national significance." Work has already begun on the
$25,000 study and a graduate student form CU's history department is in
charge of it. As far as Mr. Caulfield is aware, in terms of any capital
improvements or physical facilities that we are expected to pay for, he
hasn't heard of anything.
Ms. Burger said there was about $35,000 allocated by the City Council to
support the National Heritage program this year. Her understanding is that
the Parks and Rec. parkland fund and the Stormwater Utility have both
budgeted a similar amount of money to what is in the Water & Wastewater
Utility capital budget for National Heritage capital projects which have
not yet been identified.
Mr. Caulfield stated that the federal government will be limited to $125,000
per year for 5 years, assuming an adequate amount of money is put up by the
state and local people.
Ms. Burger concluded that it is her understanding that between $250,000 and
$300,000 has been budgeted over the next 5 years.
Conservation and Public Education Committee
Jim Clark, Water Conservation Specialist, was responding to a request from
MaryLou Smith, Chairman of the Conservation and Public Education Committee
to inform the Board about what is being done in the way of public education.
He distributed a spread sheet which he called "a snapshot" of everything
that is being done, which included conservation presentations; exposure
through the mass media; self guided displays; public information displays
covered by staff; staff -guided Xeriscape garden tours; brochures directly
distributed; brochures provided for distribution; educational videotapes
duplicated and distributed; commercial audits; responses to individual's
requests and Water -waste investigations.
"This is an indication of how many people we are reaching," he explained.
Mr. Clark also related that there has been a great deal of preparation
involved just to get the program started as a full time job. For example,
he has been networking with other programs across the country, and gathering
resources.
He handed out packets containing samples of public education materials to
Water Board members.
In addition to the samples in the packets, the Utility sells a popular
publication on Xeriscape produced by the Aurora Water Department. This year
the Utility also began giving away rain gauges, as a water conservation
promotion, not only to measure rainfall, but to allow people to measure the
output of their sprinklers, as well. These are inscribed with the name of
the Utility.
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 1990
Page 14
Mr. Clark mentioned that 3 staff members and 3 Water Board members will be
attending the National Water Conservation Conference being held in Phoenix
from the 12-16 of August.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Water Boartd Secretary