Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/28/1976WATER BOARD Special Meeting May 28, '1976 - 3:00 P.M. Present: Ward Fischer Raymond Anderson Bernard Cain, Jr. Karl. E. Carson Henry Caulfield Norman Evans Ronald Fulkrod Harvey Johnson Everett Richardson James Waltz Robert L. Brunton Staff members present: Dowell, Harding, Krempel, and Liquin Council members present: Arvid Bloom Also: Wayne Irelan, M & I, Inc. Bob Berling, Project Manager for Bureau of Reclamation in Loveland Duane Davis, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and Chairman of the Horsetooth Water Service Commission Ira Miller, ELCO Water District Lyle Nelson, North Weld County Water District John Weitzel, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Earl Phipps, Manager of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Norm Ward, CH2M Hill Consulting Engineers Dick Buchan, McCall -Ellingson & Morrill Chairman Fischer requested Mr. Krempel, Water Utilities Director, to briefly outline the purpose of the special meeting. Mr. Krempel stated that this meeting was called in order to give the Horsetooth Water Service Commission an idea of the desires of the City in bringing increased capacity from Horsetooth Reservoir for the Commission's special meeting on June 14. Copies of the alternatives available for increased outlet capacity from Horsetooth Reservoir and the staff recommendations were furnished to each member of the Water Board. Mr. Krempel stated he needed the Water Board to make a recommendation to the City Council for their meeting on June 1 on whether to adopt one of the two alternatives available to the City. Mr. Liquin stated that approximately 6 years ago, the City had a consultant determine the capacity of the Soldier Canyon outlet, which was determined at about 120 second feet. He stated that there has been a desire to have increased capacity from Horsetooth Reservoir for consumptive use of the City and the water districts for many years. This initiated the Horsetooth Water Service Commission consisting of the City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Windsor, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, Central Weld and Little Thompson Water Districts, North Weld County Wat District, ELCO Water Districtand Kodak, to study possible sources of increased capacity from the reservoir. The Commission has been meeting for about a year, during which time the Bureau made a preliminary study of the Soldier Canyon outlet, but most of the entities desired the source of supply further south. The Bureau was then retained by the Commission to make a feasibility study of a new outlet at Spring Canyon Dam and M & I was then retained to study the needs of the various entities, such as the size of the treatment plant and the size of transmission mains that would be required. The City was still not satisfied with the amount of study that had been done at Soldier Canyon, in which case, McCall -Ellingson & Morrill were retained to study the increase of capacity at the Soldier Canyon outlet. These studies have now been made. The urgency of this meeting and of the Commission making a decision is to get the project submitted to the Bureau for funding as soon as possible. Mr. Wayne Irelan, of M & I, Inc., discussed his report on the "Feasibility of a Regional Water Treatment and Transmission System at Spring Canyon", which was made under contract with the Commission, and was available for questioning by the Water Board. Mr. Irelan further noted that even though the costs are high, the new site would have certain advantages such as availability of land and the water being treated at an higher elevation to more adequately serve the area. Mr. Krempel requested Mr. Irelan to discuss the alternative of pumping the water over the top of the reservoir. Mr. Ireland stated that he has concluded that this is not a viable alternative or economical at this point. His studies indicated that water can be pumped at a cost of 8c per thousand gallons, compared to about 10C per thousand gallons for drilling the tunnel, but this was based on the assumption that power costs will not be increased for the next 20 years, which is not a feasible assumption. Mr. Dick Buchan, of McCall -Ellingson & Morrill, reviewed the Feasibility Report for modifying the Soldier Canyon Dam outlet works, and discussed the two plans that were studied. Ile stated that from the studies, it was concluded both Plan A and Plan B were technically feasible and economically viable. Chairman Fischer inquired if the Bureau of Reclamation was receptive to these alternatives as opposed to the new outlet at Spring Canyon Dam. Mr. Bob Berling, Project Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation in Loveland, stated that both alternatives were agreeable to the Bureau, but he felt that Plan A, which was the larger scheme, was the better plan. He stated that the estimate for Plan A was too low, whereas the estimate for the new outlet at Spring Canyon was high, which is what the Bureau prefers. He also stated that the Bureau was anxious to cooperate at either site with the cities or the districts. Mr. Krempel stated that the staff is recommending the Plan A. Mr. Earl Phipps, Manager of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District stated that becuase the water that will be used is allotted by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the Conservancy District will be the contracting entity with the Bureau of Reclamation, and they, in turn, would contract with the users of the outlet. Mr. Krempel stated that to optimize the Soldier Canyon outlet, the outlet would have to be disrupted for about 4 months in the winter, in which case, the City must be in a position to supply the City and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water -2- •M District, the ELCO War District, and the North Weld•unty Water District, with water from the Poudre River and treat it at the Poudre Canyon Water Plant during these winter months. He requested Board member Johnson to explain whether this was possible to do and whether the river would supply that amount of water. He stated the treatment plant can treat the amount of water that would be needed. Board member Johnson stated that in the past, the river has supplied that amount of water in the winter. He further stated that if the Poudre River should freeze, water could be transferred to Chambers Lake and then released to supplement the flow of the river. Also an arrangement could be made with the City of Greeley to have water released from the Seaman Reservoir and pumped back up into the filter plant. Mr. Krempel stated that water could also be transferred to Barnes Meadow and then released if extra water was needed. Board member Richardson stated that the CSU Research Center runs about 300 acre feet of water at a high discharge during short periods of time'in the winter, so the disruption of the outlet should also be coordinated with them. Mr. Norm Ward, of CH2M Hill, who has been in charge of the present expansion of the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant, discussed the practicallity of further expansion to the plant. He stated that with the availability of water through the Soldier Canyon outlet, the plant could be expanded further and a significant part of the existing plant can be incorporated into future expansions. He further stated that the existing operating staff would be able to operate a much larger plant with little additional manpower. The capacity of the plant with the current construction will be 24 million gallons a day, and they have been asked to consider an additional 40 million gallons a day capacity on top of the 24 mgd. Mr. Liquin stated that the outlet, at a capacity of 570 cfs, would supply more water than anyone can forseeably use. Mr. Krempel stated that the Bureau of Reclamation owns the capacity of the outlet and it is administered by the Conservancy District, lie further noted that if the City were to concentrate on the Soldier Canyon Outlet expansion, that elevated storage would be necessary in the future to adequately serve additional areas, west of the blue line. Chairman Fischer requested Mr. Krempel to give the Water Board some relative comparative costs between the Spring Canyon Dam outlet and the Soldier Canyon Dam outlet enlargement. Mr. Krempel stated that the cost of the new tunnel through Spring Canyon Dam was estimated by the Bureau to be $9,454,000, which is an updated cost to 1978. The estimated cost of the enlargement of the Soldier Canyon outlet was estimated by McCall -Ellingson & Morrill to be $2,290,000, which is at current costs. The Bureau felt that that figure should be increased to $3,000,000. Therefore, the cost of the Soldier Canyon Outlet enlargement would be roughly 1/3 of the cost of the new outlet. The capacity of the new outlet will be 500 cfs, and the capacity of the Soldier Canyon outlet will be enlarged to approximately 570 cfs, basically the same size. Ile further noted that the capital costs of the treatment plant at Spring Canyon Dam is a little over $16 million, of which the City's share is approximately 50% or about $8 million. He did not know as yet the capital costs of expanding the existing Soldier Canyon Plant, but it would probably be less than the $8 million. The salaries and fringe Benefits for 7 operating people at the proposed Spring Canyon treatment plant was estimated at about $100,000 a year, of which the City's share is about 50% or approximately $50,000 a year. The Soldier Canyon Treatment -3- Plant with increased capacity could be operated with maybe on additional person at about $15,000 a year with fringe benefits. The other operation and maintenance costs would be the same at either plant. Mr. Krempel stated that M & I apportioned the cost of the transmission system to each of the entities utilizing the Spring Canyon plant, and the City's cost was estimated at a little over $1 million. The City would need to tie that system into the City's transmission system for an additional cost of $1 million. He stated that he felt those transmission costs would be the trade-off to the elevated water storage that would be needed if the City chose to increase the capacity of the Soldier Canyon outlet. He stated that "The Soldier Canyon economically would be substantially in the interest of the community." Mr. Davis inquired how many months it will take to enlarge the Soldier Canyon outlet. Mr. Liquin informed him there would be about 2 months of dewatered channel. Mr. Davis inquired if an environmental impact statement would be needed on this project. Mr. Bob Berling stated that within the region of the Bureau of Reclamation, they hoped that a negative determination could be made. He further stated that in comparing the two outlets, the Spring Canyon outlet will deliver 500 cfs at minimum reservoir, and maybe the average capability of the Soldier Canyon outlet enlargement would be about 450 cfs over a year's period. Mr. Davis inquired if the City was considering federal funding. Mr. Krempel advised him that under the staff recommendations, it was stated for the City to proceed to expedite the increase in the capacity at Soldier Canyon by providing up to $6,000, which would be necessary to have the Bureau of Reclamation review the feasibility and get an appropriation for the cost of construction in the 1978 budget, working through the Conservancy District. He stated that the 1978 budget was already in formulation but this project could be worked in. Mr. Caulfield stated that this would then be an appropriation request of $3 million, Mr. John Weitzel, member of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Board, advised that he was representing his Board, and even though they were somewhat disappointed in the extent that Soldier Canyon had been studied without their involvement, that they definitely wanted to be a part of any increased capacity including participating in future costs. The Chairman answered Mr. Weitzel by stating that one of the recommendations that had not as yet been read was to work together with all the entities interested in the project and other alternatives and we will welcome their interest. Board member Caulfield supported the statement by the Chairman and pointed out that transmission and other costs whould be considered and the fundamental question of cooperation is whether everybody is going to benefit in the sense of lower cost. Mr. Krempel read alternative no. 1 (see Appendix A) and commented that "to do the treatment facility, we would have to create a new agency of some kind, It would be something like the Platte River Power Authority. It would be that kind of an entity. The Horsetooth Water Service Commission couldn't do that." He then read the alternative no. 2 and the staff recommendations. Board member Richardson stated that he felt that it was cheaper to enlarge the Soldier Canyon Outlet than to put a new outlet at Spring Canyon. He further stated that as one alternative, a treatment plant could be built to the south -4- and water could be delivered.to that plant with a cut and cover canal from Soldier Canyon. Mr. Krempel stated that there are many alternatives that haven't been addressed as yet. Board member Caulfield inquired that if the staff recommendation is adopted, where does that put the other entities in terms of their decision. Would the City give the $6,000 to the Conservancy District right now, or do the other entities need to make a decision before the Bureau can request an appropriation. Also, the other entities may ask the City to reconsider the recommendation that it asked them to adopt. He inquired as to how this works out in terms of cooperation. Chairman Fischer stated that if the City concludes that they cannot afford to build the new outlet at Spring Canyon and the other entities decide that Spring Canyon is the best project for them, the City might still want to enlarge the outlet at Soldier Canyon, maybe with a smaller project. He stated that exactly what the City will do depends upon what the other entities are going to do, and the City is not trying to decide for them. Board member Caulfield stated that what it comes down to is that if all the entities are not in favor of the appropriation, then it is likely that the appropriation will not be made. Board member Carson stated that if the Soldier Canyon outlet expansion is recommended, one of the key issues is what the cost of the pumping and storage will be to the other entities. John Weitzel stated that if the expansion of the Soldier Canyon outlet is recommended, the entities further south would be eliminated because of those costs. Mr. Krempel stated that several of the entities from the south have already expressed that the costs are too high for them at Spring Canyon and are examining Carter Lake as a possible source of water. Mr. Davis stated that when the Horsetooth Water Service Commission was formed, the main idea was to get a group together large enough to handle a new outlet economically. If this was done on an individual basis, there will be lower costs, but on an overall basis, there will be higher costs. He stated that the distribution lines are eliminating the smaller entities. He felt that initially Soldier Canyon looks to be the cheapest, but down the road, Spring Canyon may be the best project. Board member Johnson stated that he felt it would be more practical to enlarge the Soldier Canyon outlet if the transmission lines could be worked out. Board member Evans stated that the expansion of the Soldier Canyon outlet is the obvious thing to do. He felt that it is important to get the concurrence of the districts and maybe that concurrence should be given before the recommendation be made. Board member Richardson stated that he preferred the staff recommendation to expand the Soldier Canyon outlet and would like to cooperate with the districts. Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Dr. Everett Richardson, to adopt the staff recommendations as set forth as 1, 2, and 3 with the further condition and understanding that the Board expresses its willingness and desire to reconsider the matter if any problems should be brought before the Water Board by the water districts through the staff or direct. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. —5— Other Business Chairman Fischer requested City Attorney TLirch to attend the next Water Board meeting to discuss the City of Boulder court case, fie invited the water districts to attend the next meeting as he felt this might be relevant to them also. The next Water Board meeting was scheduled for July 9, 1976. Board member Evans stated that the resolution from the City of Thornton is being circulated now, and it says that the state should become the proprietor of all water resources and act as the wholesaler, and allocate all water to municipal, irrigation, industrial, and other uses. He further stated that the City of Grand Junction has a policy concerning subdivisions on high quality agricultural land and the city's utility service, which might be of interest to 'the City. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. < Secretary