Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/25/20000 FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES May 25, 2000 3:12 — 4:55 Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Water Board Chairman Water Board Vice Chairman Chuck Wanner (Present) Tom Sanders — 491-5448 John Morris — 491-0185 Staff Liaison Molly Nortier — 221-6700 ROLL CALL Members Present Tom Sanders, Chairman, Paul Clopper, David Lauer, Robert Ward, Bill Fischer, Dave Frick, Joe Bergquist, Dave Rau Members Absent George Reed, John Morris, Vice Chair, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Jim Hibbard, Marsha Hilmes- Robinson, Lois Rellergert, Molly Nortier GUEST Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Chair Tom Sanders opened the meeting at 3:12 p.m. The following items were discussed: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bill Fischer moved that the minutes of April 27, 2000 be approved as presented. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Tom Sanders pointed out the omission of the word "was" on p.13, under Treated Water Production Summary, paragraph 3, first sentence, between "it" and "true". After the correction, the minutes were approved unanimously. Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 2 UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger provided copies of the latest Snotel updates. He began by saying that the only major change this past month has been a significant change in snowpack and runoff. When he updated the Board in April he talked about probably spilling somewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 acre feet on the western slope. That has totally changed. The pumps have been turned on at Willow Creek and they anticipate holding all the flows that are there. He pointed out that snowpack in the upper Colorado is down to about 33% and down to 54% on the South Platte. "With the hot winds that came through recently, the snow is disappearing," he said. The lower end of the Colorado has already reached its peak flows. There are those who think the Poudre has peaked as well. Gene also mentioned that the District has run out about 60,000 ac-ft of non -charge water. Horsetooth is up to the 5,393 elevation that the District is going to try to hold until the first of September. At that time the level will go down substantially. Bill Fischer asked what the snowpack is in the Poudre Basin. Dennis Bode replied that it is certainly on the dry side. He said that most of the snow is up high. He thinks we are close to a peak. Gene went on to report on the Pleasant Valley Pipeline project. The District is working with the Bureau to approve a transfer of works from the Bureau to District ownership. This will help alleviate a lot of the red tape that will be encountered. He related that Eric Wilkinson testified in Washington recently and it went very well. They hope that within the next three weeks the Congress will take it up and the District can move forward on the project. Joe Bergquist asked if we move into a drought period, will the drop in Horsetooth cause operation rules to change? "Yes," Gene replied. "If we get into a extremely dry situation, the maximum that we can bring into Horsetooth is 550 cfs. We can run 1400 cfs out the other end." As a result, they can't match inflow/outflow. "We will try our best, but the weather will dictate what happens." Tom Sanders asked if there was an update on when construction will begin at Horsetooth. Gene replied that they are still anticipating that it will begin in October. It appears that the Bureau is beginning to back away from doing the roller compacted dam behind the other existing dam. He couldn't explain what the reasoning was for that. Instead of going down to the 450 or so feet on the cut-off curtain, they are now looking at perhaps being able to get by with a 250-275 ft. range. If they can do that, it will save a considerable number of dollars. He added that their engineering office continues to run a number of different scenarios. POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS Bob Smith explained that the Floodplain Regulations item had been discussed briefly at the last two meetings of the Board. Since the last meeting, new information has been generated regarding the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River. Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Board today that can be forwarded to the City Council. The Council will consider this item at their June 6a' meeting. Water Board Minutes • • May 25, 2000 Page 3 Staff has recommended that City Council consider the B-I Option as defined in the options matrix with two exceptions. One exception pertains to the definition of critical facilities. Due to the limited hazardous nature of retail facilities, staff is recommending that they not be included in with hazardous materials. This would place the critical facility definition in the B Option category. The second exception is in the area of remodels for existing structures in the product corridor. Staff recommends that any structure in the floodplain be allowed to either be maintained or remodeled, thus removing the product corridor limitation. This change would place the selection into the B Option category. A copy of the matrix was included in Board packets. Bob referred to two maps that were included in the packet; one was the Poudre River Floodplain area map and the other showed portions of parcels inside City limits, inside the 500-year product corridor, and portions not owned by the City, County or State (CSIJ). It also showed the 500- year product corridor, parcels, and structures in the product corridor. He also handed out two additional maps with a slightly different twist. These maps give one a feel for the order of magnitude of the implications to properties in the City, the County and what is publicly owned. He went on to say that what has happened since the last Board meeting, is that City Council passed a resolution which essentially authorizes staff to initiate a project for the berm on the Oxbow site. The location of that berm is to be determined, and will be anywhere from the River all the way to near Buckingham. What prompted that was a meeting with the Buckingham neighborhood. They were concerned about the flood hazard, and requested that staff ask the Council if the City could proceed with it, and the Council said yes. When that is completed, those properties behind the berm, will be taken out of the floodplain. "Will that impact the areas to the east of the River?" Bill Fischer asked. "That area will be taken out of the floodplain. Then, as part of the design process, staff will look at what that means for the areas upstream and downstream. Any impacts to those areas would need to be mitigated. Bob said staff still needs to determine what to do in the College and Vine area. David Lauer asked where the negotiations stand with Blair Kiefer. "They continue to negotiate," Bob replied, but he couldn't relate any details. Bob referred to a map in the packets that showed private property in the City limits that is in the product corridor. He provided information about some areas on the map. There is also a resolution going to Council on June 6w that authorizes the City to initiate an acquisition program for willing sellers of properties with structures in the areas marked with boxes. He said there is no time limit, and Council will consider each acquisition individually. However, the resolution does indicate that the City has condemnation powers. Bob reiterated that Council would like a recommendation today from the Water Board regarding the Floodplain Regulations. Bob then referred to a map that showed properties in the floodplain outside the product corridor in the City limits. He pointed out some parcels that will be impacted. He also pointed out where Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 4 Wal-Mart is going to be built. Marsha Hilmes Robinson explained that Wal-Mart has gone through a separate process through FEMA to remove themselves from the floodplain by fill. "They are basically out of the floodplain already," she added. Bob went to the slide on Modified Option B-1 with the floodway and product Corridor Criteria (0.1-foot rise floodway and product corridor of > 6) • Allows public infrastructure, recreation, natural resource facilities. • Allows public capital projects to protect existing properties. • Allows remodel of existing structures. • Implement purchase of existing residential and commercial structures. • Prohibits additions to existing structures. • Prohibits fill. • Prohibits redevelopment of existing structures • Prohibits modification for development • Prohibits new mobile home parks, residential, or commercial development. • Prohibits floatable materials on commercial properties. "Allows remodeling of existing structures" is different from the B-1 in the matrix. You are allowed to maintain an existing structure in the product corridor and 0.1-foot rise floodway. He added that you can remodel but you can't add to the footprint. Bob also pointed out that you can't tear down an existing structure and rebuild. Marsha explained that you can't cause a rise on another property. If it is causing a rise, it's going to have to be on City -owned (public) property. "Could you conceivably put a bridge within the 0.1-foot floodway rise?" Mr. Frick asked. "As long as you are not causing a rise in someone else's property," Marsha replied. "If this is going to prohibit fill, has the Lemay Crossings already been approved?" David Lauer asked. "It doesn't apply to Lemay Crossing because all the structures there are outside of the product corridor floodway," Bob answered. Bob Smith discussed next the Modified Option B-1 — remainder of Floodplain Criteria • Allows capital projects to protect existing properties. • Allows commercial. • Allows remodel of existing structures. • Allows purchase of residential structures. • Allows additions to commercial. • Allows redevelopment for commercial. • Allows public infrastructure, recreation, and natural resource facilities. • Requires dryland access. • Requires lowest floor 24 inches above BFE (Base Flood Elevation). • Prohibits additions to residential. • Prohibits redevelopment for residential. • Prohibits new mobile home parks and residential. Water Board Minutes • • May 25, 2000 Page 5 • Properties removed from floodplain under certain conditions. • Prohibits floatable materials on commercial properties. Removal from F000dplain Conditions One of the new additions was that properties can be removed from the floodplain under certain conditions. The conditions are listed below: • Must be outside the floodway or the product corridor; • Must have FEMA issued LOMR based on Poudre River Master Plan capital project; • FEMA issued LOMR-Fill Lowest floor 24 inches above BFE (residential or commercial) At least 15% boundary contiguous to non-floodplain land Dryland access to dry public street • 500-year criteria still apply. Under these conditions, property will be removed from the floodplain. Bob emphasized that you aren't allowed to impact somebody else. In regard to the definition of critical facilities for the 500-year floodplain, the modified B-1 option includes the definition in the option B category. Definition of critical facilities includes: Day care facilities Schools Cemetery facilities Bob took the Board through the matrix to clarify the changes and how they fit into the matrix. Marsha explained that hazardous materials definitions are left to the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) because that is their job. It isn't practical to put all of those definitions in the regulations. She emphasized that staff now tries to be consistent with all the PFA definitions, whereas previously there was little consistency. ACTION: First Motion David Lauer moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the B-1 modified option with the two conditions, one being our previous conditional statements about the product corridor and that we ask Council to indicate on each deed whether properties are in the floodplain or floodway. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. Chair Sanders asked for discussion. Dave Frick didn't think that having the deed reflect whether a property was in the floodplain, is much of an issue. You can't buy a piece of property with any kind of a mortgage on it without it having to be certified in or out of the floodplain. He didn't think it would be worth the cost to the City to be required to file deed restrictions on all the properties within the floodplain. Staff is already doing some notification to residents and property owners annually. David Lauer agreed to remove that item from his motion. Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 6 Paul Clopper asked for a clarification of the motion. He asked about the first condition, which was the statement about the product corridor. He recalled two meetings back that the Board recommended that the Council not consider the 500-year product corridor for technical reasons. "Has Council asked us to keep that in there?" "Council isn't directing anybody to do anything," Mike Smith stated. There was a preference at a study session for that option. The Board is obligated to give the Council their best opinion. Bill Fischer wanted to replace B-1 with B-1-A, which would remove the product corridor from discussion. He said he would not be supporting the motion on the floor. Paul asked Marsha to clarify implementation, since staff is going have to implement this. "How onerous will that task be if you are saddled with the 500-year product corridor in addition to 0.1- foot rise?" "It will be another layer of review that staff will have to go through," she responded. She said there aren't that many properties to deal with overall, so it's not going to be a large burden. "It confuses people; that's the problem," Dave Rau contends. "The number doesn't actually mean that much." Paul Clopper agreed that if people get the impression that we are protecting them from the 500-year flood, it may come back to haunt us. Dave Frick explained that we don't have to deal with many parcels with the Poudre, but when we begin considering Spring Creek and Dry Creek, etc. it could become a nightmare. Marsha said if that is what's in the document, staff would find a way to make it work. Bill Fischer wanted it to be included in the record that he greatly appreciates the considerable amount of time that staff has devoted to this. They gave considerable thought, as well, by including different options. "Please don't take any of my comments, or anyone else's as negative," he stressed. Bob commented that in staff's outreach to the community, he noticed that when you describe the product corridor and the floodway and 0.1-ft. rise, people grasp the product corridor more easily. It's difficult for them when you talk about encroachments, rise and conveyance, etc. Dave Rau thinks the product corridor is a useful tool to help people understand the concept, but he still thinks it confuses people. David Lauer asked Council Liaison Chuck Wanner to speak to this issue. Chuck said that technically he wouldn't argue with the Board, but what Bob says about people understanding the product corridor is relevant. One of the reasons is that it puts some health and safety limits on it. It is an attempt to create a level of human safety. It also tries to get people to relate to a longer term perspective. He thinks it's a legitimate concept from the public's standpoint. "You are the technical experts, so it's up to you to recommend what you think is best," he concluded. David Lauer also asked Marsha is she thinks keeping the product corridor concept in there gives staff more ammunition to educate. She concurred with what Bob said about lay people grasping the concept more readily than the explanation of a floodway concept. "If you explain depth times velocity and that a normal person is going to get knocked down in this and that debris is going to be floating, the light bulbs go on," she stressed. "They understand the health and safety aspects which is what we are trying to achieve. From an overall broad perspective it is a good Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 7 educational tool. Paul contends that the City has already gone through the exercise and has been more than reasonable and prudent in establishing and making the comparisons between the 0.1- foot rise and the product number. "We can still use that, but we don't need it as part of the policy." Dave Frick agrees that it is an easier concept for the lay person to understand, but it gets to the point that you are regulating to a hundred -year flood point elevation and you are setting a product corridor based on a different flood elevation than the 100-year elevation. "I think going through the exercise of the product corridor was very valuable. Using that helped define the 0.1- ft. flood right-of-way as a justifiable way to go from a health and safety standpoint," he acknowledged, "but it's going to be double the effort for staff from the administrative standpoint," he concluded. ACTION: VOTE on First Motion Bill Fischer called the question. The Board defeated the motion 5-3. Those voting against the motion, as stated in the discussion, didn't support the concept of the product corridor as being criterion that needed to be in the regulations, and some questioned the benefits of its use. ACTION: Second Motion and Vote Dave Frick moved that the Water Board ask the Chairman of the Water Board to draft a memo to the City Council recommending that they adopt stairs modified B-1 option with the three exceptions, and excluding reference to the product corridor. In addition, he said the memo should explain the Board's objection to including the product corridor concept in the option, but that they understand that it has been a good educational tool from a health and safety standpoint. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-2 with Robert Ward and David Lauer opposed. Robert Ward explained that he was opposed to the motion because he was concerned that there was so much confusion with it. He also said that one could argue that we're going to be involved in this debate on a regular basis. "Somebody is going to say that a flood coming down through there is going to cause some problems, and you haven't accounted for it because all you are dealing with is the rise," he contends, "and one calculation is used to determine that." He wasn't convinced that this motion would solve the problem. He would prefer to deal with it up front rather than have it assumed. "Just the determination of the floodway alone can become a problem, technically," Dave Frick interjected, "and every time you have an additional complexity, it becomes another headache for reviewers to worry about." It seems to Robert that one concept is protecting life and one is protecting property. Dave Rau didn't agree. "The whole thing is somewhat arbitrary," he insisted. Robert said he realized that a lot of assumptions were made to get to that point. "The big assumption is what risk you are willing to live with," Dave Rau asserted. David Lauer contends that the product corridor idea is more valuable than the technical problems with it. He agreed with what Robert Ward said when he expanded on his concerns. Summary The Board liked the criterion identified in the B-1 Option with the staff recommendations but had concerns about the product corridor. These concerns include the technical accuracy and imprecision of the computations in determining the product corridor and whether an additional Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 8 regulation is necessary when the areas delineated for the 0.1-foot rise floodway and the product corridor are so close. The Board also had concerns about the technical accuracy of the product corridor and the administration of the corridor area, which would be subject to considerable interpretation by staff or by consulting engineers submitting information regarding proposed projects. The product corridor concept is a rule of thumb criterion and will change over time. On the other hand, the floodway criterion is a nationally accepted standard and is readily understood and universally used. Using the 500-year design storm for the computation of the product corridor introduces confusion on the level of protection being provided compared to the 100-year floodplain and floodway analyses and regulations. The Board questioned the need to introduce an additional regulatory criterion, when compared to the 0.1-foot rise floodway, when they are almost the same in this application. The more appropriate use of the product corridor would be in the area of educating the public regarding the health and safety hazards or risks of flooding and floodwaters. Moreover, the Board selected the 100-year 0.1-foot rise floodway concept because it is far more precise and, technically, it is easier to administer. STAIT REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for the month of April the City's water use was 2,313 acre feet which was about 16% above what they had projected for an average year. For the year, through April, it was 9% above average. Looking at May, we are running almost 20% above average up through May 24th. "It's pretty obvious that this is because of all the warm weather and less precipitation," he stated. He pointed out the temperature and precipitation figures at the bottom of the summary. Comments and questions about Previous Handouts There were no questions. Water Supply Dave Frick distributed some reports on droughts in Colorado, which Robert Ward had provided. Dave reported that the Water Supply Committee met recently. They spent at least two hours going through different water supply policy issues. They discussed a whole host of topics, which included raw water requirements, storage needs, use of different existing supplies, drought criteria, water conservation and potential joint efforts with the tri-districts and other water users. "We didn't reach any conclusions," he said. As they get further along in their discussions, they will be ready to bring some items to the Board for consideration as part of the process to adopt a new water supply policy. Dennis Bode said he hopes that the Committee can meet for the next several months and reach some conclusions. He mentioned that there are some issues that will have to be addressed sooner rather than later. Tom Sanders related that there is a deadline on Halligan. Dennis said a decision needs to be made by the end of the year. Robert Ward said the reason he brought the report on Drought in Colorado was the Committee's lengthy discussion about drought. He said the report represents a synthesis of 20 years of research into the nature of Water Board Minutes • May 25, 2000 Page 9 drought. It was put together in a way that is easy to read and its use of graphics is helpful in pointing out the variations in patterns of moisture moving into the state, and how each basin in the state has its own wet and dry cycle over the year. Chair Tom Sanders requested that the Committee make a recommendation for Halligan and then begin looking into the drought criteria. Legislative and Finance Chair Robert Ward said the Committee has not met, but they may want to meet in light of SB 215, which didn't pass. He wondered what the implications on Northern Colorado's water supply might be if there is an effort to try to pass something like that in the next session. Tom Sanders asked what SB 215 dealt with. Robert said it was a bill to begin the planning to construct a facility to bring 120,000 ac-ft of west slope water to the east slope, and to develop 40,000 ac-ft for use on the west slope. Conservation and Public Education David Lauer hadn't given reports at some of the meetings, due to lengthy agendas. For his report today he concentrated on two items: the mandatory water metering program update and the Water Conservation Annual Report. He said he has a highlighted version of the report if anybody wants to read about two new items that have occurred since an earlier report. The mandatory water metering program is doing quite well. On a map of the City he pointed out the x's on the grids that show which grids have been completed so far. They are now working between Shields and Taft Hill going towards the east. The northern tier is completed all the way to County Rd. 9. The crews are doing about 200 installations a month. The City expects that the project will be completed18 months earlier than staff had projected. "We should give accolades to our staff for doing such an excellent job," he stated. The Committee discussed briefly the technology that allows a meter reader to get a meter reading from his vehicle. "We are now set to do that with about 700 meters," he concluded. David said the annual Children's Water Festival was interesting and successful as usual. He enjoyed playing the role of Water Wizard at the competition among the various schools. Engineering Chair Dave Rau said they didn't have a meeting, but he understands that the Halligan issue will be on their agenda soon, as well as review and discussion of Stormwater Master Plan items. Update on Regional Issues In light of the tri-city dinner meeting coming up this evening in Greeley, Tom Sanders asked Mike Smith to give an update on some of the regional issues. Mike began by saying that the meeting tonight is with Greeley and Loveland. He said that over the years, Fort Collins has had very little interaction with Loveland. "We are working with them now as part of the Big Thompson Watershed Forum." The City has also worked with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water Water Board Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 10 District in a joint distribution system study. Jim Hibbard explained that Loveland wasn't involved in the joint distribution study, but staff has had some preliminary discussions with them. For example, if the FCLWD built the pipeline'/, of the way between Fort Collins and Loveland, does it make sense to build it a little larger and interconnect those systems in case of emergencies? In reality, the discussions were somewhat preliminary, he said. Mike said Loveland has some Windy Gap water and they are looking into how to find or build some storage to basically firm -up that project. Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield, the Northern District and others have had some discussions about the Chimney Hollow site just west of Carter Lake. "There may be some discussion about that at the meeting in Greeley tonight," Mike added. Years ago Fort Collins decided to opt out of that project and assign its share of Windy Gap to Platte River. Since Loveland has a utilities Board now instead of just a water board, Windy Gap may come up as an electric power issue too. Mike went on to say that Fort Collins has a little more inter -action with Greeley. They are a partner in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline that we are working on with the Northern District. "We are anxious to get that project going. They are also a part of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NIISP), which involves Seaman Reservoir. Fort Collins is interested in that and how it fits together with the Halligan project. Greeley is also involved in the Big Thompson Watershed Forum, as well as the forum on the Poudre. Dennis Bode mentioned that, in addition to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, Greeley is also interested in getting some outlet capacity that Fort Collins currently has at Soldier Canyon. "That's something that we are trying to negotiate." He also related that one of the things Greeley and Fort Collins have worked together on for a number of years, is the joint operations plan on the Poudre River, which basically provides 1 Ocfs of flow from Chambers down to the mouth of the Canyon during the winter. Mike added that there is a history with Greeley on the Rockwell land exchange with the Forest Service. There has been a bit of friction with those negotiations in the past because of disagreements about the terms of the exchanges. Mike mentioned that the Halligan decree is senior to the Seaman enlargement, so Greeley may like to have Fort Collins join in on Seaman and forget Halligan. Joe Bergquist asked about the results of the Seaman Reservoir Study. Dennis Bode said Greeley has done some study at the site itself, but he thinks the NISP group has stepped back and looked at the water demand in the region and the need and purpose for it. Some of the potential integration between some of the projects, is still a piece of that study. He added that there are a number of options they have explored, from enlarging the old Seaman Reservoir to moving downstream a ways and constructing a larger new Seaman Reservoir. They have also done some preliminary work on potential yields for different size reservoirs. Miscellaneous Questions David Lauer asked Gene Schleiger if the Northern District is now preparing an application or permit to the BOR for damming that would involve main stem dams as an option on the Poudre. Gene said the conditional filing is there, but to the best of his knowledge, there is nothing going on for a main stem dam. Mike Smith pointed out that the Grey Mountain conditional decree is Water Board Minutes • • May 25, 2000 Page 11 still there. "You aren't going through another permitting process?" David continued. "Not at this time," Gene answered. Robert Ward asked if the South Platte Water Conservation Project is still alive. "It's still up and going," Gene replied. "All the projects have to have components that fit together to make them work," he related. "Are you having to apply for a new permit for the new Seaman?" David asked. "There's a conditional decree on that," Mike said. "There's a conditional decree up at Grey Mountain," Mr. Bode responded. "It may have to be moved or whatever is required," Gene noted. The District has certainly looked at the option of taking some main stem water and pumping it up to the new Seaman site," Dennis said. "A number of things would have to come together for that to happen," he pointed out. Gene stressed that the Northern District won't walk away from the conditional decree on the main stem until there is a viable alternative. "If we walk away from it, our neighbors to the south are next in line," he cautioned. Robert asked if the staffs meet regularly to discuss the relationship of these projects. "Yes, Dennis Bode participates with that group, and I go occasionally," Mike replied. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. ater�etar t a� Water Board ecretary