Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/27/1992WATER BOARD MINUTES March 27, 1992 3:00 - 4:30 P.M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow, Paul Clopper, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Dave Stewart, Tom Brown slaff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander, Jim Clark, Andy Pineda Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent (excused) Mark Casey, Dave Frick President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Tim Dow moved, Ray Herrmann seconded, and the Water Board unanimously approved the minutes of February 21, 1992 as distributed. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed the Colorado Water Almanac and Directory from the Colorado Water Congress. He also provided copies of the latest precipitation and reservoir storage information. Mr. Bigham reported that Granby Reservoir is now under the 32% that the District hoped it would be as the spring run-off begins. As the District continues to bring the water over, the reservoir will probably drop to about 28%. Carter is full and the NCWCD is trying to fill Horsetooth as full as possible. Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 2 He said the pumping plant at Flatiron continues to be down for maintenance and will be down for the summer, so Carter Lake had to be full so "we could run for the balance of the year." The river flows out of Colorado have been good, resulting in flows that were up to 1700 cfs, and that was in March; in February, there were some flows a little higher than that. Nearly all of the plains reservoirs are either full or as full as they dare, at least until the windy season is over. Ray Herrmann asked if Nebraska has storage. Mr. Bigham said they don't have on -stream storage. Neil Grigg said they can take some of the water into the side ditches. Mr. Bigham added that they probably have some local storage, but he doesn't know what the capacity is, etc. Mr. Bigham continued his report by saying that the predictions for the East Slope, as far as snowpack, are in the upper 70s; perhaps in the 80s depending on what basin it is. He said the figures he has are two weeks old, so the numbers will probably change when they are updated. Unfortunately, the West Slope is still in the 70s, which isn't what the district would like to see at this time of year. There hasn't been any heavy snowfall in the upper basin, and in and around the Granby area. He went on to say that Denver is not going to divert through the Moffit Tunnel this summer, because they will be working on the tunnel. When they don't divert, it means there will be more free flow in the Fraser River which runs into the Colorado. Some preliminary projections show that there could be some 30,000 Ac-ft that could be pumped to the Windy Gap project and into Granby, and offered for rental as the District did last year. "I suspect the District Board is going to approve some pumping," he said, but he doesn't know how much. In addition, there is still approximately 2,000 Ac-ft of Windy Gap rental water left from last year. Although some of the percentages aren't as high as was hoped, "overall we are in good shape," he said. There are 63,000 Ac-ft in the carryover program. Mr. Bigham guessed that we are probably looking at a 60% quota this year. Do you think Granby will be down significantly all summer? Tim Dow asked. "I would suspect that if it gets up to the 60% range, that will be the top," Mr. Bigham replied. If you are able to pull some of that water over through Windy Gap, can you just leave that to increase the amount in Granby, or do you have to pump it over to use this year? Mr. Dow continued. It can be left for storage in there as long as the vessel has capacity, Mr. Bigham said. Under the contract with the Bureau, the minute the water is put into Granby, technically it becomes CBT water, he explained. The Bureau has waived the carriage contract, so all we have to do is pay for the pumping. • 0 Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 3 How much does it cost to pump an Ac-ft of water over, Dr. Grigg wanted to know. It costs $21.00, Mr. Bigham replied. Neil Grigg asked about current legislation. SB140, concerning changes in administrative provisions for allotments of water, and providing allotments of capacity of "works," has been sent to the governor for his signature, Mr. Bigham responded. Dr. Grigg also asked how the District Board feels about all the changes in the state engineer's office and the Water Conservation Board. They are quite concerned, Mr. Bigham replied, but the major concern is the administration of water rights for the State of Colorado, which must be administered without any political overtones. The director, who will eventually be hired, must be "a pretty strong person," and must have considerable expertise to handle all the important items that are coming up. It isn't expected that someone will be hired before the fall. He added that the District Board representatives have spoken to the governor about their concerns. Acceptance of Bylaws as Amended The Board reviewed the proposed amendment to the bylaws at the February meeting. The procedure is to review the bylaws at one meeting and approve them at the following meeting. Terry Podmore moved that the Board approve the bylaws as amended. After a second from Tim Dow, the vote was unanimous for acceptance. Discussion of Water Banking ConoZ - Ward Fischer Ward Fischer was not able to attend today's meeting because of a conflict, but agreed to come to the April meeting. President Grigg wanted to go ahead and discuss the Water Bank concept today in preparation for Mr. Fischer's participation at the next meeting. Dr. Grigg said that Ward Fischer began discussing the water bank concept during the initial meetings of the Chamber Water Committee nearly 3 years ago. Dr. Grigg related that in thinking through what the options are, he found that in all of the discussions he has been to, it seems to him there are 3 concepts the Board can look at to accomplish the same goal of keeping the water in northern Colorado for both city water use and irrigation: 1) Regional Water Management Agency - a wholesale organization to manage water. Of course, the Northern District is already in place as that kind of organization. But the fact is the District only manages CBT water and Windy Gap water, which means they manage only a part of the water in the region. Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 4 Various people have studied this issue and have come to the conclusion that it would be good if we could pool the water in the region. People who own water rights could put it under the authority of one organization where it could be moved around more efficiently, and we could get more out of it. One model would be that people could assign their water rights over to the District for them to manage. Of course that is quite controversial. There are people talking about establishing another organization that could pool water and work in the common interests of all. 2) Another option is one that Ward Fischer suggested. A central group could organize and buy water and hold it for the common good of the region, and perhaps lease it back to the people who sold it to them. To do this would require a group coming together with a large amount of capital. That concept may not work because the financial return on the capital just isn't there. 3) The third option is the city/farm option. Municipalities would option with farmers to take water in dry periods, but let them have it for ordinary use. This option could proceed if the cities in northern Colorado would decide to get into that business; each one independently. The sum total of city/farm option business is that we would probably leave more water rights in agricultural use in the long term, and also add drought security for cities. "It might be a win/win deal if we did that," Dr. Grigg said. There isn't any movement on that option as he sees it either. As a matter of fact, there isn't any movement going on in any options. They are all in the study phase. It seems to Dr. Grigg that the Water Board should consider doing some brainstorming. He pointed out that some options would require changes in the water laws. Tim Dow concurred with that. Probably this overall effort would require revisions to the current legislation including how you can bank water, for what uses, and how that would affect decrees? He concluded that it would require a big effort. Tom Brown said it certainly would be a big effort if we are talking about a group of cities getting together and forming some overall organization. "It doesn't seem to me it would be that big a change from current practice for municipalities individually to, for instance, have options with farmers, or for individual cities to purchase and lease back additional water," he said. "Were you suggesting that those individual city options are difficult legally?" he asked. "Not necessarily," Tim Dow replied. Neil Grigg explained that there are legal concepts that have created a question mark in his mind as to how they would affect the water banking concept. "I have heard that there is a lot of water management around that is carried out by just informal agreement, e.g. within the Poudre Water Users Association, or within a mutual ditch company," he said. If a water right has been Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 5 decreed to go into "this" ditch, but a person might like to trade with someone for mutual convenience, they just work that out. The water community follows through with it. That might involve a change in point of use which wouldn't go through the water court. Nobody complains about it, so it isn't pursued. If you looked at a strict application of the law, his conclusion would be that it is illegal. If you carried that out to a larger scale, you are at the same concept. The only question would be the scale at which you would make the changes. "I think these informal agreements take place both within user groups and the ditch companies. It may be that when the ditch company first had its rights decreed, it might have been irrigating certain lands with certain crops at certain times of year, and they may change that all around without ever going through water court," he explained. Dennis Bode related that more and more of those types of exchanges are being decreed. Just about anything that is new is being decreed now. He explained that there is kind of a "catch all" decree on the Poudre that was created in the 1970s. Although it is very general, there are a number of decrees and exchanges that could be accomplished under it. Who is the decree to? Dr. Grigg asked. "I think it lists nearly all of the users in the Cache la Poudre Basin," Mr. Bode replied. Ward Fischer was involved in the decree with the Cache la Poudre Water Users Association Dr. Grigg pointed out that under the Substitute Supply Authority Law, there is some flexibility to do some of these things, but he doesn't know exactly how it functions. John Bigham thinks that it was enacted to provide a temporary supply to those people who want to augment until they have established some running numbers for base data. Then they can file for their permanent augmentation plans. He added that. he doesn't think it can be applied to anything but augmentation. Dr. Grigg stated that perhaps Ward Fischer can explain some of these things further when he meets with the Board in April. Dr. Grigg asked Mike Smith if he thinks water banking is something the City needs to look into. Mr. Smith replied that he thinks water supply can't be the only factor to be considered; you have to look at water treatment as well. In order to share supplies, sometimes it means you have to be able to get the water to where the people want to treat it, he explained. "It may take a little more than just saying, we're going to share supplies to make it work," he stressed. He added, however, that there is definitely some potential for cooperation there. That underlines the need to have a management authority that can move the water around so it can be delivered where it is needed, and also points out why working together as a region would be good, Dr. Grigg emphasized. Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 6 Mike Smith stressed again that the key to water supply management for municipalities is regional treatment, because then it doesn't make any difference where the water comes from. You can share supplies without having to worry about treatment. He concluded that without regional treatment, pooling water in the region is going to be very difficult. The City of Fort Collins participated in the District's regional study, Dr. Grigg began. We now have the southern project going. Is there anything in the regional study that is going to benefit Fort Collins or move us toward a concept like regional treatment? The report on the northern part of the study has not been completed, Mr. Smith responded. John Bigham explained that the drafts are completed, but some of the work is being reviewed and edited. Mr. Smith related that if the Utility does its own water treatment master plan, "we will be looking at that ourselves." There is definitely some potential for regional treatment, he said, because in the spring Fort Collins can't use all of its decrees, and the water districts are using CBT water. If we shared water, we would be sharing the direct flow rights in the spring, and using CBT water other times. This would result in better utilization of the water, he said. Would you expect some suggestions to come out of the Northern part of the study as to how we could share the water? Dr. Grigg asked. "There might be," Mr. Smith replied. If that were the case, would we hear a lot of complaints from users downstream because less would be flowing to them, and would make it less likely for them to use their junior rights? MaryLou Smith inquired. "They might, but we have a right to use our direct flow rights," Mr. Smith asserted. Tom Sanders pointed out that Fort Collins can still do banking on its own and not have someone else involved. As for the legal question, 9 years out of 10 the water would remain in its old use as agricultural water, he stressed. Do we have to go through court to use it briefly as a municipality, even though it is returned to the farmers? The uses in the decree have to be planned, Tim Dow began. Otherwise, every time a year comes where you have to change the use, you have to go to water court, and the timing on getting that approved may not coincide with when the water is available for use, he explained. Can the law be flexible enough to use it as a joint decree where 90% of the time the water is for ag use, and 10% for municipal, Tom Sanders reiterated. "I don't think it's specifically flexible like that," Mr. Dow replied. Dr. Sanders thinks that flexibility is what should be pursued in the courts, where agriculture is maintained and the needs of the municipalities are also met. Tom Brown said he understands that essentially Dr. Sanders is saying that this is a legal way to have an option for the City to call on the water in a dry year. "That's right," Dr. Sanders replied. i Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 7 Mr. Brown recalled that John Clark is finishing his dissertation on options. Dr. Grigg said he has read a draft of the paper and he doesn't think there will be any contribution from it on the legal aspects we are concerned about. Tim Dow heard a feature on NPR reporting that the governor of California is trying to get the Central California project away from the federal government and back to ownership and control of the State of California. "It would take an act of congress to turn that project over to the state," Ray Herrmann asserted. Mr. Dow thinks it is an interesting idea to try to get the control of that big project away from Washington. Neil Grigg commented that there is considerable attention being given to environmental and water issues, particularly in California due to the prolonged drought. President Grigg concluded this portion of the agenda by saying that the Board will return to this subject when Ward Fischer joins the group at the April meeting. Staff R== Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for February water use was 1,447 Ac-ft, which was 94% of the projected amount. He mentioned at the last meeting that water treatment plant personnel were checking on the water measurements. They have made some minor adjustments and feel the measurements are now very accurate. Ray Herrmann asked how we are doing on March precipitation. Mr. Bode said it has been a wet month and at this point we are substantially above average. Children's Water Festival Board members received a brochure in their packets outlining the program for the Children's Water Festival to be held in May at the Lory Student Center. Linda Burger reported that staff members Jim Clark and Wendy Williams have worked diligently with representatives from the NCWCD, Poudre R-1 and CSU to produce an exciting and interesting program. The plan is to have about 1500 fourth graders participate. Each of the program segments is about 20 minutes long and will be repeated as different groups come through. In addition to all the sessions, the students will be participating in a water trivia contest, she said. There will also be an exhibit room where the Utility will have a display. Ms. Burger said she has received feed -back from Council member Ann Azari, who is very pleased with the program and what the Utility staff has accomplished. Ms. Burger invited Board members to drop by and experience the festival. She concluded by saying that with programs like this, the water community is really beginning to have an impact on what people know about our water systems. Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 8 Reminder about NCWCD Meeting Board members received flyers in their packets about the NCWCD spring water users meeting. It will be held on April 2, 1992 at the Raintree Plaza Hotel and Conference Center in Longmont from 8:15 A.M.- 3:00 P.M. If you plan to eat lunch there, you need to RSVP to the District before March 31st. Committee Reoorts Water Supply No report. Legislative and Finance Chair Tim Dow reported that Senate Res. 92-6, which would provide the authorization for the Water Resources and Development Authority to consider financing the southern water supply project, needs some clarification. The issue, in terms of the Utility's potential interest, is that this authorizes feasibility studies for a southern project to consider transmission of water from Carter Lake. It designates the areas of possible receipt of that transmitted water. Included in the list, in addition to Larimer County and others, are Adams and Jefferson Counties. Those are counties that are not currently in the District boundaries. "I would be curious to know if this is a quiet way to potentially make an effort to expand the District boundaries to the south through this authorization," he said. If so, should the City of Fort Collins be concerned about it? John Bigham responded that there is no attempt to expand the boundaries. The only boundary the District has considered is to the Weld County line. He wasn't sure about the legalities. Tim Dow stated that another potential problem could be that if the transmission facilities are funded and completed down to those points, ultimately it is possible, through some process of exchange, that Thornton could get water delivered through Northern District facilities by exchange of ditch rights they have up north, without having to construct their pipelines. Ray Herrmann asked about SB92, a draft of which was attached to the review of legislation included in the packets. Linda Burger explained that the Board had discussed SB92 at the last meeting, and at the time it was a rather comprehensive bill for mitigation of out -of -basin transfers. The reason she included the marked -up copy was because that was all that was available when the packets went out. She wanted to show that the bill has changed basically from a mitigation bill to a re -vegetation bill. The Water Board had recommended a position in opposition to 92 as it was proposed and 92, as she understands it, has been stricken as it was proposed. Something similar to what is in the packets has been put in its place. She didn't have the final wording, "but it should be similar," she added. Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 9 Conservation and Public Education Chair MaryLou Smith reported that the Committee met on March 25th and she said it was a productive meeting. They first reviewed the resolution that will go before City Council on April 7th. Board members were given copies of the resolution. She reminded the Board that staff had responded to Council's concerns about the resolution shortly after the work session. In their response to the Council, staff basically said "this is the resolution that we now plan to present." There were very few changes. So far nobody from the Council has responded to the changes, but there may be comments at the session on April 7th. At the Committee's next meeting members will take whatever document Council has passed and essentially use it as a working document for Committee action. One of those actions will be to recommend what options to use for zero interest loans. Ms. Smith communicated with Susan Kirkpatrick about the "Year of the River" declaration. Mayor Kirkpatrick responded favorably to the letter from Neil Grigg indicating the Water Board's desire to be involved in promoting the "Year of the River." The Mayor stated that it wasn't her intention to create a lot of new programs but to incorporate activities with other existing groups such as the Poudre River Trust, and also taking advantage of events like the Children's Water Festival. The Committee came up with some other ideas as well. Subsequently, Ms. Smith spoke with Kari Henderson in Planning who is working with the "Year of the River" concept. The Committee wanted to coordinate with Ms. Henderson so they would not be duplicating what her group is doing. There may be two specific things the Water Board could do: Send a flyer to youth groups around the City announcing the Year of the River and suggesting a variety of projects they might undertake; both educational and service related. Also Jim Clark related that Mark Taylor of the Utility is coordinating an up -coming river clean-up or improvement project. Mr. Taylor was pleased to hear of the possible involvement of the Water Board. Mike Smith announced that wastewater treatment personnel are going to do a clean-up at the river near the plants. Steve Comstock is coordinating that with Kari Henderson. Paul Clopper suggested checking with the Stormwater Utility because some of the clean-up is tied in with their master drainage -way planning. Lee Martinez Park is one of the areas they have targeted. MaryLou Smith asked Jim Clark to report on the conservation grant the Utility was recently awarded. He began by saying that, as Board members may know, the State has established a Water Conservation Office which is under the Department of Natural Resources. They have $500,000 available for grant money over the next few years. A few months ago the Utility decided to submit a proposal. There were 63 proposals and Fort Collins was one of 14 selected Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 10 to receive a grant. The amount of our grant is $10,000. The study for which the Utility is getting the money will be to research the water saving benefits of adding compost and manure to the soil. It is a subject that has received considerable attention throughout the whole demand management process. Mr. Clark tried to find information on what the real savings are for amending the soil, and found that most of the data are from lab experiments. The Utility's research will use actual situations. Staff will be comparing 50 new homes that will amend their soil, with the incentive that they will receive a rebate. Those homes will be compared with 50 homes that will not amend their soil. Since all participants will be new homes, all will have meters. In addition, all participants will be given information on efficient watering, so that does not become a variable. The intent of the study is to find out what the benefit to the soil amendment is with real watering practices. Another purpose of the research will be to try to determine if the homeowners will recognize the benefits of the amended soil (less run off, better absorption) by watering less, or will they continue to over -water? There is considerable information related to Xeriscape regionally and nationally, stating that one of the 7 principles of water conserving landscaping is improving the soil. "We know theoretically that there is a benefit, but we don't know in practice what the benefit is," he said. This coming summer staff will select the volunteers. In 1993 they will gather data from these homes. Since the homes selected will be metered, staff will be checking their indoor use based on winter consumption and subtracting that from summer consumption. A task force is now being formed, and many details still need to be worked out, he concluded. President Grigg congratulated the Utility for being selected for the grant. MaryLou Smith pointed out that she works closely with Kim Hout, the manager of the water Conservation Office, and she told Ms. Smith that competition for the grants was really tight. With that information, it is even more gratifying that Fort Collins' proposal was chosen. Jim Clark commented that he has heard from people locally and nationally who will be anticipating the results of the research to incorporate in their conservation programs. Dr. Grigg said that he talked with Ben Alexander and Mike Smith recently about the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 site which was taken out of service a few years ago. The question is what is going to be the best future use of that site. One question is, can CSU be a player in the future to use part of the property as a demonstration site. CSU is exploring the idea to see if they would like to make an offer to the City. Another potential user of that property is state • 0 Water Board Minutes March 27, 1992 Page 11 parks. Out of all those questions, there may emerge a proposal for joint use of the property somehow. At this point it is still City property, but not in use. In his discussions with CSU, -Dr. Grigg came up with some other interest areas. There have been discussions about the property at I-25 and East Prospect near the Poudre River for a reception center for people coming into the City. Because this is the Year of the River, and because of the Heritage Corridor designation, Dr. Grigg has suggested the possibility of having some water education facilities in that center emphasizing the importance of water. He thinks there is enough potential in the idea, that it bears more discussion. Mike Smith related that the City has master plans for development on Prospect and Harmony Rds. "The City isn't a strong advocate of the welcome center," he pointed out. Some private groups are pushing that. At this point, there is no money to build a welcome center. One of the proposals is that the people interested in a welcome center would like to acquire a piece of the Resource Recovery Farm for the project, only because they could do a joint project with the CSU Environmental Learning Center. Dr. Grigg concluded that there may be something there in the future for a water education area. President Grigg said if any Water Board members have ideas about how some of these sites like the water treatment plant site and the welcome center, etc., could be coordinated, he would welcome them. Engineering Committee Chairman Dave Stewart announced that the Committee met a couple of weeks ago to discuss the District's Regional Study and found that they didn't have a copy of the full report. Mr. Stewart copied the report and sent them out to Committee members with assigned sections for each one to review. They will set a time for a meeting to begin their discussion of the report. Other Business Tom Brown said it was interesting to note in the "Water Intelligence Monthly" that the City of Aurora just made an agreement to lease their treated effluent at $15.00 an Ac-ft to a farmer downstream. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. ,Q7s�u Yi `2C`rf' Water Board Secretary