Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/17/19890 WATER BOARD MINUTES November 17, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Tom Brown, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Mark Casey, (alt.), Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Webb Jones, Wendy Williams, Jim Clark, Jim Hibbard, 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 Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of October 20, 1989 were approved as distributed. Henry Caulfield asked Mike Smith to explain why Thornton was not giving a presentation today as was indicated at the last meeting. Mr. Smith said that Thornton's attorneys advised them not to come until after the impending trial is over. Mr. Smith added that Thornton should be completing their engineering report soon. Once that is out perhaps staff can review it with the Water Board. He also mentioned that Thornton said they may be inter- ested in discussing, at a later date, the possibility of purchasing sewage effluent from the City. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham reported that reservoir storage is low on both the east and west slopes. Storage is less than 50% of active capacity and about 62% of average for this time of year. Soils are dry and the moisture that falls melts and is absorbed, so it isn't helping the run-off. Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 2 A record 327,000 AF of water was delivered this year. "Prior to that we had not reached a 100% quota of 310,000 AF," Mr. Bigham related. Some of the carryover water was cancelled out, he added. However, there was a substantial amount of carryover water that was put into storage on the local side. "We are hurting in the overall picture, but we do have adequate storage for at least one more year," he concluded. Mr. Caulfield referred to the November 9th Triangle Review account of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District regional planning study. In the article, Mr. Caulfield said, it was stated that the District was making demand estimates for Aurora, Westminster and 5 or 6 other cities below the Boulder County line. "I am curious as to why you are doing that," he asked. Mr. Bigham responded that the District isn't making the estimates. The people below the line have been interviewed to see what their population projections are, and what they think their demands will be in the near future, and into the more distant future. This was done to see what kind of pressure they could bring to bear on the northeastern water supply since Two Forks may be in trouble, or at least delayed for a number of years. "So it's a defensive action rather than an offensive action," Mr. Caulfield observed. "That's right," Mr. Bigham replied. "As you are aware, the Dis- trict Board is considering and will continue to consider moving the sub- district boundaries to the Weld and Boulder County lines, so we must be sure what the pressures from some of those cites may be," he added. Wilderness Water Rights A staff memorandum analyzing the Wilderness Water Rights Resolution was included in the Water Board packets. Mr. Caulfield related that the City Council Legislative Committee held a meeting on this matter and Linda Burger will report on that. Linda Burger pointed out that a letter with the Assistant Mayor's signature was included in the October Water Board packets. The letter, sent to Sena- tors Wirth and Armstrong and Representatives Brown and Campbell expressed the concern that the City of Fort Collins has for their water rights in relation to the North Platte Wilderness Area. "A federal water right for that downstream wilderness area could directly threaten the City's water right or result in a re -opening of the compact with Nebraska and Wyoming to the detriment of the City," the letter stated. Ms. Burger said that the press has covered this issue on a regular basis. Most Colorado representatives are interested in some movement forward on designation of additional wilderness areas in Colorado. The difficulty in doing that is how federal reserved water rights fit into the equation. She went on to say that there has been a group, meeting under the sponsor- ship of Senators Wirth and Armstrong over the last couple of years, trying to resolve how we might designate some additional wilderness area in Colo- rado, and also deal with the attendant water rights issues. Water Board Minutes • • November 17, 1989 Page 3 That group has been unable to come to an agreement or a compromise. "As a result, Senators Armstrong and Wirth are going in somewhat different direc- tions in terms of introducing wilderness legislation this year," she explained. Rep. Campbell is also expected to draft legislation. The first issue is whether or not there are reserved wilderness rights asso- ciated with the headstream wilderness areas. Most people don't have a prob- lem with that because it doesn't impact water use. The next issue is whether there are reserved wilderness water rights associated with down- stream wilderness areas, which is an issue because it can significantly impact water rights. One existing wilderness area in Colorado is the North Platte area. It's about a one mile wilderness area along the Wyoming border; the majority of the area is in Wyoming. That wilderness area potentially impacts the City's Michigan River/Joe Wright system. Through an interstate compact decreed by the supreme court, the State of Colorado is allocated 60,000 AF over a 10-year period, and the City of Fort Collins has the majority of the water that is available to Colorado under that allocation. "If a wilderness water right is designated for wilderness areas and becomes attached to the North Platte Wilderness area, we have a potential of a pretty direct attack on existing City water rights and our $17 million investment in our Michigan River/Joe Wright system," she warned. Ms. Burger believes that the issue was explained quite well in the letter, mentioned earlier, that was sent to our representatives about two weeks ago. "About a week ago we received a request from Senator Armstrong's office that the City consider the resolution that is in front of you," she continued. There are a couple of the principals that are probably not critical to the Fort Collins situation; there are others that are very critical to the pro- tection of our North Park rights, she said. "I think specifically that we want to take the position that any attachment of water rights to a headwat- ers wilderness area does not carry a precedent for also establishing a water right for a downstream wilderness area," she stressed. "Our other concern would be that there would not be a federal reserved right attached to the North Platte," she said. In addition to being a problem in terms of our own water right there, we also have the potential of re -opening the interstate compact, Ms. Burger related. If it were re -opened, and some sort of an arrangement were made to accommodate a federal reserved right in the North Platte area, it would have to come out of Colorado's allocation because Colorado is the only state that is upstream of the Wilderness area, she explained. "It wouldn't do any good to take water out of Wyoming or Nebraska," she added. Therefore, if it comes out of Colorado's allocation, it comes out of the Fort Collins alloca- tion." Staff reviewed the proposed resolution this morning with the Council's Leg- islative Committee. The Committee wants to consider this issue at their December 5th council meeting. They would like to have some input from the Water Board prior to that. Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 4 Ms. Burger explained that the Legislative Committee is composed of three members of the Council who are empowered by resolution to take action or make recommendations to the whole Council on legislative matters, both state and federal. Tom Brown asked what the priority dates are on our water in the North Platte area and what the date of designation of that wilderness area was, and how they relate. The City has two primary sets of water rights, Ms. Burger replied --"the first group is dated 1902 and the second group is dated 1988." The wilder- ness legislation was passed in 1964. The North Platte Wilderness Area was designated in the early 1980s. What happens is if there is a wilderness water right attached to the North Platte Wilderness Area on the date of its designation, then that would become superior in time to the City's 1988 rights. Mr. Caulfield didn't realize that most of the Wilderness Area is in Wyoming. "One mile of it is in Colorado," Ms. Burger said. She made it clear that we are largely dealing with an issue that is totally separate from the issue of whether or not there should be additional wilderness area designated in Col- orado. "We don't want to get into that issue other than to the extent that it impacts the City's water rights." "What were the concerns of the City Council Committee?" Mr. Caulfield asked. "I think that the three there were in general agreement with the resolution, but they wanted it tailored more specifically to the Fort Collins situation and not to be quite as broad as it is in covering rather general concerns of the State of Colorado." In other words, what the Council is doing is tailor- ing it more to Fort Collins concerns; taking out references to the issue of whether or not wilderness areas ought to be designated or be kept on the study list; taking out reference to withdrawal of water from wilderness areas in emergencies; and adding that Colorado water law be followed in situations where emergency withdrawals may be necessary. She also reiterated the concerns she began with: 1) If federal reserved rights are attached to headstream wilderness areas, that it not be done in such a way that it sets precedent for also establishing a water right in a downstream wilderness area; 2) That there be a specific prohibition on a federal reserve water right in the North Platte Wilderness Area. Paul Eckman added that in the resolution where it refers to downstream wilderness areas as being downstream from cities, farms and industry, "it ought to refer to wilderness areas downstream of diversions of water for cities, farms and industry." Henry Caulfield pointed out that the City has had Attorney John Carlson's advice also on this matter. Water Board Minutes • • November 17, 1989 Page 5 "Where is the support for legislation coming from?" Dave Stewart asked. Senator Wirth has a fairly broad environmental coalition in support of his bill, Ms. Burger replied. Senator Armstrong now has a draft of a bill pre- pared and that has the support of a broad coalition of industry, municipali- ties, agricultural interests and water development interests. The list of those are on the second page of the staff memo. "What is the date of the North Platte compact?" Ray Herrmann asked. "1945," Ms. Burger replied. Why would the 64 Wilderness Act or the 80s North Platte Wilderness be senior to the compact? "They would have to go back and esta- blish a wilderness water right before there was a wilderness," Mr. Herrmann continued. Ms. Burger explained that it wouldn't be senior to the compact, but it would be senior to our 1988 water rights. Mark Casey asked if the water for a wilderness area is like a minimum stream flow. "The language came out of the Sierra Club vs. Block lawsuit." Ms. Burger paraphrased: "You have to provide water sufficient for the use intended by the designation." "Is it measured in terms of a minimum flow?" The way it has been interpreted in the language in the decision is "the water that's there," she replied. In other words, you can't do anything upstream that would change the flow or quality of the water through the wil- derness area. Ms. Burger pointed out that there currently is a challenge by the State of Nebraska to the interstate supreme court decree. "So far the State of Colo- rado has been successful in keeping that lawsuit an issue between Nebraska and Wyoming," she said. Some environmental groups tried to enter into that case for the purpose of opening it up for consideration of in -stream flow issues. So far that has been resisted. However, if a Federal Reserved right were established, she thinks that the likelihood of the whole inter- state compact being re -opened for all three states, including the issues of wilderness water rights, would be possible. The attorney general's office has worked very hard to keep Colorado out of that to protect Fort Collins by protecting the state allocation. At this time an executive session was called to discuss the legal issues concerning the water rights. Following the executive session Mike Smith distributed a sheet that compared the Wirth and Armstrong proposals. Linda Burger asked the Board to keep in mind that City Council Committee is not proposing to endorse either bill or position. Wendy Williams related that Wirth's bill specifically says that there are implied water rights for downstream. And more than that, it specifically proposes going back and designating a retroactive reserved right for the North Platte. "That's the major concern," she stressed. She clarified that although he represented his bill as a headwaters only bill, it does in fact provide for an implied right for downstream. "That's primarily why we wrote the letter that went out under the Assistant Mayor's signature," Ms. Burger added, "because Wirth's bill specifically establishes a water right for the North Platte Wilderness Area." Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 6 "Does the Armstrong bill specifically preclude implied federal water rights?" Ray Herrmann asked, "because there is already an implied federal water right there which is being adjudicated in a number of places," he added. "What it basically says is that the government has to go through the Colorado Water Courts." "How are they defining headwaters?" Dave Stewart asked. "I think the head- water areas are those above any existing water development," Ms. Burger replied. Mark Casey believes the draft resolution is too sweeping. "I think the opponents of this bill are ignoring the direction the horse is riding. Whether we like it or not, what's happening in California with the Public Trust Doctrine is going to move this way. While I'm not convinced that Wirth has the perfect bill, I think that Armstrong's is a knee-jerk reaction, and I don't think it's getting us where we need to be," he insisted. "We're not voting on either bill," Tom Moore asserted. "We are voting on this resolution that basically falls in between the two bills. "It comes pretty close to Armstrong's position," Mr. Casey contends. "With the pro- posed changes suggested by the Council Committee this morning, it does that much less," Ms. Burger pointed out. "While I'm very sympathetic to the City's financial exposure on this, I think the bigger issue is what's right," Mr. Casey believes. He added that he thinks there is a larger value issue at stake here. Ms. Burger pointed out that Dennis Bode calculated that our 6,000 AF a year in the North Platte represents less than 2% of the total flow. Consequently, protecting our water is not going to have a substantial nega- tive effect on the wilderness area; in other words, we are not protecting our water right at the expense of water flowing through the wilderness area, she emphasized. "Can't we protect our water right explicitly without coming out in favor of saying that downstream wilderness should not have any water?" Mr. Herrmann proposed. "The fact is," he stated further, "if you have a downstream wil- derness, it's implied that the water that is in the wilderness goes with the area, or you don't have a wilderness." "Can't we just say we want our nearly 2% protected?" Mr. Caulfield explained that "there is a lot of water coming out of Colorado that we can't divert." Dave Stewart agreed with Mr. Herrmann. He believes that Fort Collins should state that we are not opposed to the wilderness bill, but we are concerned about the water we have already appropriated. Water Board Minutes • • November 17, 1989 Page 7 Ms. Burger explained the process instructions from the City Council Commit- tee: 1) They want the resolution introduced at their December 5th meeting, and they would like whatever input the Water Board has conveyed to them through the resolution. 2) City Council does not want to take a partisan position. 3) The Council does not want to address the issue as to whether or not there should be additional wilderness areas in Colorado. That's not really a City issue. What we are concerned with is City water rights, and they want to state that in the resolution. Ms. Burger reviewed the Council Committee's proposed changes in the resolu- tion: The first three "whereases" would be modified to speak more in terms of the City of Fort Collins instead of the State of Colorado, but with the general meaning left intact. Next the language that talks about the parti- san groups and their problems would be eliminated. "In terms of the resolu- tion, I think that my sense of the discussion was that the concept of having federal water rights processed through the Colorado State Courts and given priority dates within the Colorado system is important, she said, and that's item No. 1 in the resolution." As for No. 2, the committee decided it was important just to keep the con- cept. No. 3 they agreed to keep, but they could be open to the concept of down- stream rights processed through the State Courts. Mr. Caulfield cautioned that you don't want to rest too heavily on the State Court idea. "Any deci- sion of this kind can be appealed through the Federal Court System." The Council Committee was in agreement with No. 4. In No. 5 they would like to specifically mention the North Platte compact. The committee wanted to replace No. 6. They thought the idea of withdrawing water from wilderness in an emergency was inflammatory, and that Colorado water law has mechanisms for dealing with emergency situations; i.e. droughts. Item 7 they wanted to eliminate. Henry Caulfield stated that Linda Burger will distribute as soon as pos- sible, the draft that the Council instructed her to do, plus what the Water Board has suggested. "If there is any disagreement regarding any of it, we will call a special meeting of the Board to consider the matter further, because we don't have explicit language in front of us to react to today," he said. Tom Sanders pointed out that the Legislative Committee of the Water Board will be meeting on Monday Nov. 27 and the three of them will be considering the resolution. Mr. Caulfield also stressed that telephone comments could also be solicited. Is it the sense of the Council that they want a broad resolution?" Mr. Herrmann asked, "or would they rather have something that is very specific to the Fort Colins issue?" The two issues are the Michigan Ditch and a precedent being established for downstream wilderness areas, Ms. Burger replied. "We can be hurt just as easily by a precedent being established in Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 8 terms of downstream wilderness areas as we can by the direct allocation of a reserved right," she stressed. Mr. Herrmann said that he has some major problems with sneaking in the back door on federal reserved water rights "which is what the Armstrong bill is trying to do," he asserted. "What the resolution does is put Senators Wirth and Armstrong and Repres- entatives Brown and Campbell on notice that the City of Fort Collins has some specific interest in how the legislation is drafted," Ms. Burger stated. The staffs of those individuals will probably try to work with Fort Collins to try to design legislation that addresses our concerns, she added. Tom Sanders believes there also needs to be language protecting all of the City's other rights downstream including Halligan, Rockwell, as well as our existing ditch rights, and all the other ideas we have in mind for the future. He also stated that "just and fair compensation" ought to be stip- ulated somewhere as well. Tom Moore moved that the Water Board recommend the Council Resolution with the stipulations that were articulated. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. President Caulfield said in addition there should be a Water Board report accompanying this pointing out the Board's other recommendations; for example the concerns that Tom Sanders expressed. Mr. Caulfield also proposed that it is important to include the fact that less than 2% of the total flow would be affected and that Fort Collins would not be "starving the wilderness area of water." Ms. Burger assured the Board that it would be in the agenda summary. Tom Brown was also concerned that whereas No. 2 appeared to be negative towards wilderness areas. "Could that be made to sound more positive?" he asked. Ms. Burger said she thinks the Council Committee would be agreeable to that. After further discussion, Linda Burger said she would draft a resolution which is responsive to the three City Council members who comprise the leg- islative committee. "Any direction from the Water Board that they are not willing to accept, will be presented in a separate recommendation," she assured the Board. The question was called. Henry Caulfield, Tom Sanders, Terry Podmore, Tom Brown, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart and Paul Clopper voted in favor of the motion. Mark Casey voted against it for reasons stated previously. Ray Herrmann abstained. The motion passed by a vote of 7-1 with 1 abstention. Water Board Minutes • • November 17, 1989 Page 9 Tom Moore asked what the realistic chances are of getting some kind of legislation drafted. "There is a lot of pressure to get some kind of wilderness bill through this year," Ms. Burger responded. Obviously the thing that has been holding it up the last several years, is the water issue. If somebody can come up with enough of a compromise, it may pass. Revisions to Out -of City Ordinance Mr. Caulfield reminded the Board that they had asked Webb Jones to clarify some areas the last time an out -of -city service request was presented to the Board. Webb Jones explained that at times staff brings requests for water and/or sewer service outside of the City limits to the Water Board. As the ordi- nance exists now, in order to provide out -of -City service, approval of both the Water Board and the Planning and Zoning Board is required, he continued. In recent years the P&Z Board has required that applicants requesting out - of -city service, annex their property if it is eligible. What staff has tried to do is formalize that requirement and at the same time streamline the process for those who make routine applications, and eliminate the consideration of both the P&Z Board and Water Board in those cases, he explained. "By routine we mean someone who is in an existing home who might have a well they can no longer use, a septic system that no longer functions, and has access to a water/sewer main that the City owns," he clarified. Applications for multiple services would be handled the same as before. The thinking was if there is a county development of more than one home that's requiring service, we maintain the process of going to both boards. To accomplish these objectives, the following changes to the out -of city ordinance are being proposed: (1) Owners of property eligible for annexation will be required to initiate annexation proceedings before city service will be provided (2) Owners of property that is not eligible for annexation may receive approval for out -of -city service from the Director of the Water and Wastewater Utility if a single connection to one or both of the City's water and wastewater facility is required. (3) Developers requiring multiple water and/or wastewater connections for property not eligible for annexation must receive approval of both the Water Board and Planning and Zoning Board before service will be provided. Webb Jones pointed out the flow chart attached to the agenda summary that attempts to trace how the applicant would go through the process. Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Jones met with the P&Z Board that morning. Their only concern was that the out -of -city service agreement we currently execute with the applicant doesn't change and that those who enter into the agreement agree to annex at the time that they become eligible. The out -of -city service agreement signed by the applicant will not change and the requirement to annex when eligible will remain. Tom Moore moved that the Water Board approve the new out -of -city service ordinance changes. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. The proposed ordinance passed by a unanimous vote. Reactions to Natural Resources Board Water Committee Goals and Obi.ectives A copy of the Natural Resources Board Water Committee's goals and objectives was included in the packets. Mike Smith explained that Brian Woodruff, the staff person for the Natural Resources Board, provided a copy for the Water and Wastewater Utility and the Storm Drainage Utility to get their input. They would also like the Water Board's comments on their work plan for 1990 as it pertains to water. Henry Caulfield remarked that what is proposed is sufficiently unclear that it might be a good idea to have 2 or 3 people from the Water Board and 2 or 3 people from the Storm Drainage Board meet with the Natural Resources Board Water Committee to try to clarify what their intentions are. That would be a way to avoid trying today to discuss what these four points mean, he sug- gested. In addition, Mr. Caulfield believes that the three boards could use this opportunity for mutual education as to what each board is responsible for. Linda Burger mentioned that she had received a copy of a document that a sub -committee from the Natural Resources Board had prepared. It was a description of a number of the monitoring programs that are carried out by the City; almost all of which are carried out by the Water and Wastewater Utility, with a minor part carried out by the Storm Water Utility. "I have no problem with Natural Resources trying to get a feel for the type of moni- toring programs that go on,"she said. "However, they had planned to submit their report to City Council as a report on what they have been doing towards meeting their goals as a Natural Resources Board, and that I did take issue with," she added. It seems to her this is one of the topics that should be addressed when relative roles are discussed. "If you get in a position of one board reporting about what the staff of another board is doing, there is too much confusion," she believes. Mr. Caulfield explained that the Natural Resources Board was just estab- lished a few years ago and because of that, it has the least clear functions of the three boards. "How do the staffs interact on theses issues?" Dave Stewart asked. Mike Smith said the staffs communicate on certain issues. Water Board Minutes • • November 17, 1989 Page 11 Ms. Burger explained that the Natural Resources Board is interested in a broad array of environmental issues. "I think their responsibility in a general sense is to promote the enhancement and protection of the environment," she said. Henry Caulfield thinks that a meeting with a few key people from each board could be arranged to get a better clarification of what these goals involve; namely what their functions are and what our functions are, and then get them to re -state some of their goals. Ms. Burger explained further that the Natural Resources Board has been charged with the responsibility of developing a comprehensive plan for the environment of the City of Fort Collins. Exactly what that plan is supposed to entail is not clear to her, "but it is comprehensive," she stressed. Consequently, they are in the process of developing a process that includes working with the other boards and commissions and working with quite a net- work of citizens in developing a plan for things like how the City protects water quality. This plan, when it is finalized, would be presented to the Council and that will become the City's plan for, among other things, pro- tecting water quality, she concluded. Dave Stewart moved that Henry Caulfield, along with someone else from the Board or staff, meet with representatives from the Natural Resources Board and the Storm Drainage Board to clarify what the intentions are. Mr. Caul- field will then report to the full Board on what the relative roles of those three bodies are. Tom Moore seconded the motion, and the Board voted unani- mously to approve the motion. Henry Caulfield asked staff to report on the unfortunate water main break that occurred recently in the downtown area. Jim Hibbard, the Distribution and Collection Manager for the Utility, reported on the incident that occurred on Wednesday, November 15. A large portion of the transmission main on Jefferson Street blew out and flooded a few businesses, he began. Because it was a transmission line it was neces- sary to shut off the water for about 2 hours. The concrete and asphalt that fell in due to the force of the water, destroyed whatever was left of the main in that area. The crews ended up having to replace two sections of pipe or about 40 feet of 16 inch main at that point, he continued. That was com- pleted between 7:00 and 8:00 on Wednesday night. The City hopes to have the street re -opened to traffic by Tuesday of next week. That 16" cast iron main was installed in the early 1950s. "Because it is cast it is subject to catastrophic failure like that because of the brittle- ness of it," Mr. Hibbard explained, "but we haven't had a lot of trouble with it," he added. Moreover, it seems that every 3-4 years this kind of main fails, and because of its size or location, it makes a large impact. Water Board Minutes November 17, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Hibbard went on to say that the act of closing down the line and the water being re -directed around the leak, results in a significant amount of cloudy water in the distribution system. That is due to the sediment that lies on the bottom of the pipes. "As long as the water flows in just one direction, it just lies there, but when you begin stirring it up with high velocities or backing it up the other way, it tends to pick up the sediment from the bottom," he explained. In this case it was aggravated by the man- ganese problem in the water which the Utility has experienced recently. In addition to the problem of the flooded businesses, the Health Department decided to close several downtown restaurants and bars, etc. that they felt were at risk, "although our water quality people detected no risk," he added. "We had chlorine residual in the distribution system at all times," he assured the Board. "Even though the water was unpleasant to look at and even more unpleasant to drink, there would not have been any particular risk." Dave Stewart asked if the failure was due to corrosion. "No, there was no evidence of any corrosion," Mr. Hibbard replied, "and it didn't appear to occur in a classic beam break situation which would indicate a poor bed- ding," he added. "We will have to chalk it up to unknown," he said. The most likely answer would be a metallurgical problem that happened in the manufacture of the pipe. The fact that it is cast iron makes it prone to breakage and in addition, the quality control in the early '50s didn't match up to what we are using these days, he stressed. Mr. Caulfield related that Neil Grigg had hoped to be back from his trip to Denver in time for this discussion, but apparently he wasn't able to make it. He and Mr. Caulfield recently discussed the distribution and wastewater collection system in terms of the Water Board's involvement. Over the years, the Water Board has been definitively concerned with wastewater treatment, water treatment, water acquisition and water rights, but "we've never really focused on the distribution and collection system." Dr. Grigg and Mr. Caulfield have proposed that a three person task group of the Water Board's Engineering Committee work with Jim Hibbard to look com- prehensively at that system; for example what our policies are in various areas, such as rehabilitation. "I have no agenda," he said. The details could be worked out by Dr. Grigg and whoever else wanted to be involved. This could help the Water Board and the City Council to eventually gain a more comprehensive view of distribution and collection system. Paul Clopper agreed that this was a good idea and that he wanted to work with Neil Grigg and Jim Hibbard. Tom Sanders moved that an ad hoc group of the Engineering Committee be formed to work with Jim Hibbard to take a comprehensive look at the Distri- bution and Collection System. After a second from Paul Clopper, the motion passed unanimously. Water Board Minutes • ► November 17, 1989 Page 13 Other Business Mr. Caulfield brought the Board's attention to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, sent out in the packets, discussing the concept of a water bank for Northern Colorado cities. Dave Stewart, the chair of the Water Resources Committee of the Chamber, and one of the authors of the letter, stated that things have been on hold until a research assistant was assigned to the project recently. The Board will be hearing further about this, probably after the first of the year, he said. A meeting will be scheduled soon for representatives from the water boards and staffs of Longmont, Love- land, Greeley and Fort Collins to discuss this idea. Mr. Caulfield announced that the City Council is planning to appoint a citi- zens task force to pursue further the National Recreation idea. Mr. Caul- field has been told that he will be appointed as a member of the task force. The group will explore the question of federal designation. He said that he has been on record as saying that as far as the City is concerned, our ulti- mate authority at the federal level is the EPA and the Corps of Engineers through 404, and then the state. "We are not interested in having the Secre- tary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture having any right or privilege, legally, to second guess the EPA," he stated. He emphasized that as far as he knows, "nobody has objected to that general position." It also appears to be consistent with the views of the Water Board. He added that it's a summary way of saying a lot of what we said in our report to the City Council about two months ago. "You will recall," he said "that the draft legislation submitted from Rep. Brown's office, would have had the Secretary of Agriculture being a kind of top dog about everything in connection with this matter and he could set aside EPA, etc. That we don't want," he asserted. Mr. Caulfield said that the City Council doesn't want to appropriate $50,000 to $75,000 for further study, so they are proposing to appoint the task force instead, made up of people like himself who have had a lot of federal experience. He stressed that he would be representing himself on this task force, not as president of the Water Board, but he will be updating the Board on any developments. Terry Podmore asked for an update on the Parkwood Homeowner's Association proposal to use untreated water for their green belts. Webb Jones reported that staff has prepared a draft proposal. It might be possible to present it at the next board meeting, he said. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.