Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/15/198940 Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Terry Podmore, Tom Moore, Tim Dow, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, Mark Casey (alt.), Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Keith Elmund, Wendy Williams, Kevin Gertig, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. Josh Hadachek, CSU Student observing Members Absent Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were dis- cussed: Minutes The minutes of August 18, 1989 were approved as corrected. On p. 15, No. 4 should read: "Transition off the Resource Recovery Farm within 1-10 years;" not 1-0. John Bigham distributed information sheets with Precipitation within the district from April -August; Storage Comparisons (acre feet); CBT Inflow and Delivery Comparisons (AF) for Granby Reservoir; Deliveries, Quota and Replacement with several years of comparisons; a Summary of NCWCD CBT Water Delivery Report for August 1989. He said that storage at Granby Reservoir was at 55%, Horsetooth down to 42%, Carter Lake, down to 280% of active capacity and Boulder Reservoir at 51%. "Of course they are getting even lower now with water going out," he said. "We shut down the main canal between Flatiron and Horsetooth this morning." It will be drained down over the weekend to begin some rehabilitation work on the concrete panels on the supply canal. "However, we are going to div- ert from the Thompson River through the Dilly Tunnel into what is called the 550 section, so we will be able to keep some water coming north," he explained. Those entities along the canal will get some water that way. Probably the important thing is to look at the total capacity in storage at this point. "We actually have 40% of the active capacity on the east side, 48% on the west, with an average of 45%. We are less than 1/2 full; a total of 522,000 AF, which means we have about a year of of water use in storage Water Board Minutes. September 15, 1989 Page 2 left." Granby will probably be drained down to about 100,000 AF at dead pool 75, so there won't be much there. The water will be placed in Carter and Horsetooth and "then we'll pray that we get a good winter snow pack!" Mr. Bigham also reported that the sink hole that appeared in the south end of Horsetooth Reservoir turned out to be one of those strange geological occurrences but he assured the Board that there was no danger to any of the dams. Staff Reports A. Budget Each Board member received a summary of the Water and Wastewater budgets in their packets. Linda Burger had planned to give an overview of the budget, but she was ill. Mr. Caulfield suggested that Tim Dow's Legislative and Finance Committee meet with Ms. Burger some time before the October meeting. He explained that basically, the administration, budgeting and details of all that are the staff's function and not the Water Board's responsibility. However, there may be basic investments, or things like that which the Water Board should discuss. B. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that after a very high water use month in July where we were about 22% above the projected use, August was about 95% of the pro- jected total use. It was a cooler month and the water use dropped accord- ingly. For the year we are about 3% above the projected use, so we expect to end the year fairly close to average in terms of our demand. Our preci- pitation totals, at this point, are close to average, after the rain last weekend. Mr. Caulfield asked about the City's leasing this summer. Mr. Bode reported that early in the summer, farmers took advantage of the leasing. About 10-12,000 acre feet were leased. All the demand was early in the sea- son. "We held back to make sure we had enough water for our supply." When there was some significant rain, those who generally lease the water didn't need additional water either, so we ended up with a little surplus water, he said. VIuy UI I UI L l.V 111113I VI L l V l I ma- UVCIUIIU 116E 1 1 LI 1l % 1 CIIICIIL A draft agreement had been provided in the Water Board packets. Henry Caul- field referred the Board to p. 6 of the agreement under (k) Water Quality Committee. He also directed the Board's attention to the Steering Committee minutes from the August 30 meeting. He said that almost the entire discus- sion at the meeting was on section "K." Staff revised the section to reflect the major points of the discussion. "The idea that many of you may have problems with," he said, "is that two elected members of the District, plus 2 City Council members would be on the 7-member Water Quality Committee." This came up at the initiative of the District's members who are elected people, and the two City Council representatives on the Steering Committee agreed. The other three members of the Water Quality Committee would be technical experts, he said. The point that's in there that Mr. Caulfield and Mike Smith agreed on is that any progress that comes from the Water Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 3 Quality Committee will go through this Board before it goes to the City Council. He pointed out that the last sentence of this section should read, "If either the (District) Board or the Council votes to override the deci- sion of the committee, either party may thereupon terminate the agreement." The word district was left out. "The facts are clear that the elected Dis- trict members of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District definitely want to be two of the members of that committee." Our 2 City Council members on the steering Committee have no problem with that. Mr. Caulfield believes they would like to be members too. "The idea of it coming back through the Water Board is one that we would want to insist upon," he emphasized. Furthermore, the minutes point out that there will be another agreement drafted to sell water to the District for approximately the next 3-4 years. In other words, they will buy treated water from us at an agreed upon cost. That will give them breathing room to get things organized in terms of a higher quality water production from their plant. Mr. Caulfield related a part of the discussion not recorded in the minutes. He said that this was also for the purpose of giving us time to discuss with the three entities a longer term idea of a consolidated water treatment enterprise. He emphasized that nobody has committed to anything. However, the idea was discussed that "we would talk during this 3-4 year period about consolidating in one way or another." He added that the Water Board has long felt that we need to have a mechanism of getting together for region- alization; for getting economies of scale available to all of us and for getting the water quality monitoring --which is a highly sophisticated enter- prise that we have available to everybody --not duplicated. Mike Smith pointed out that Exhibit E on the draft agreement has some addi- tional water quality standards. The purpose of the water quality committee is to resolve any differences of opinion that the staffs may have between the City and District on amending Exhibit E in the future. Exhibit E is a very important part of the potential agreement to the City. Both the Dis- trict and the City agreed there should be a means of settling disputes regarding reasons for changing the standards. "These aren't mandated stan- dards, he stressed; "they are voluntary standards that exceed or are better than the regulated standards. He reiterated that it would be a 7-member committee, two from the District Board and two selected by the City Council. The way it reads now, the Council appoints 2 and the District Board appoints 2. "We are going to assume that it will be City Council members appointed, but staff didn't want that included in the agreement because a future Council may want to appoint a Water Board member," he explained. The three remaining committee members will be selected by mutual agreement by the four other members; hopefully technical experts who will assist them in resolving water quality issues. Once the Water Quality Committee makes its decision, if either the City or the District doesn't agree with it, either can appeal to their boards. For example, if the Water Board and City Council decide they disagree with the Water Quality Committee, and if it's a significant enough issue, the City can decide to initiate termination of the agreement. "It's at the City Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 4 Council level that the decision is made, with the Water Board's recommend- ation," he added. Tim Dow asked if the standards listed are the current standards for the City of Fort Collins. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied, "they are at a level at which we believe we are putting out a quality of water which is safe for the public right now from what we know." However, our quality level is better than those standards at times. Ben Alexander concurred that "these are our in- house standards. They are better than the regulated standards," and he emphasized "the standards that we didn't want to compromise through this agreement. Our citizens are paying for this quality of water and we don't want to see that jeopardized." "I take it that we are to understand," Tim Dow began, "that we just can't put in the agreement that the water quality will be the same as or consis- tent with whatever the then current standards followed by the City of Fort Collins are?" Ben Alexander responded: "That's where we started three years ago." "This seems to be a mechanism to open the door to allow some other standards," Mr. Dow observed. "I think that what it really boils down to," Mr. Caulfield said, "is that these standards are higher than the EPA stated standards. Issues can come up where they say, "we meet the EPA state stan- dards but we don't meet the Fort Collins standards, but that's not terribly important so why don't we compromise?" That's what Ben Alexander is worried about, he believes. However, that issue could well come up. "I don't know what we can do about it and still come up with the agreement," he admitted. He emphasized that he is not implying that the District is trying to play games with us in any way. In other words, they are not intending to lower standards. "Isn't it an economic issue for the District in terms of the cost of attain- ing the higher standards?" Tim Dow asked. "In some instances it is," Mike Smith replied. "The District doesn't have the treatment process facilities that we have. They must expand to do that but they have not made that com- mitment to do the full process that we have." The District was quite impressed with the equipment that the City has as well as the pilot project where testing is done, Mr. Caulfield related. Mike Smith stated that it's an educational process with the District. As' they become more informed they may come to believe that there is a good pur- pose for treating the water to the best degree possible. However, this edu- cational process may take some time, he added. Henry Caulfield asked if the District has selected a contractor for the design of the plant."Yes, they have selected an engineer," Mr. Smith replied. "It's a small firm called The Engineering Co. (T.E.C.), a two -man operation. They are very good, but they just don't have the depth or expe- rience that they may need," he said. Neil Grigg asked how far the contract goes; is it pre -design? "They are going now to pre -design and they are get- ting some estimates and reaching a point where they can make a decision to bid it out or to do a construct/build, or whatever." They hope to get to Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 5 that in another six months. That will be another decision point for them. "How much have they invested in this particular effort," Dr. Grigg asked. Mr. Smith thinks it's fairly preliminary. "They said that if in the next six months we come up with some other options that appear to be feasible, they would drop it, so it's not enough money where they feel they can't back out," he said. Dr. Grigg said that one option he thinks we have would be to take the 6 month time period and present to them some options that we think might be viable for them to look at, or be in their best interest for a regional treatment facility. "We could move out of the discussion mode a little to a somewhat more aggressive mode of doing a study ourselves." "I think that's very possible," Mr. Smith agreed. "As a matter of fact we are working on coming up with some options for them to look at." The NCWCD is sponsoring a large study of the front range. We have asked for a second phase of that study to concentrate on this area, which would include Greeley, the three districts and fort Collins. The Northern District has expressed interest in doing that, as well as Greeley and the Districts. It sounds like a good thing to do, if we can do it quickly before someone spends a lot of money. "One way to do that is to figure out a way to bind the parties together to look at what's in the common interest and have them agree to at least look before they make that investment decision," Dr. Grigg stated. "I think they will," Mr. Smith responded. At our next meeting we are going to actively look at defining a scope of work, as far as options to evaluate. If everyone can agree to look at the options, "I think the consultant that the NCWCD has hired would proceed to do that. It will be done under the umbrella of the regional study," he explained. Henry Caulfield related that the problem we are faced with first is that the District is anxious to conclude this agreement. Then they are interested in the next phase which is buying water from us for the next several years. The third issue is the combined set up. ELCO has not yet said, yes, we want to talk. At that level of District membership, we don't have it all lined up yet, he said. Mike Smith concurred with Mr. Caulfield's assessment. He added that actually this agreement can not be implemented, even though everyone approves it and signs it, until the District expands their plant and gets to the point where they can treat water to our quality. Mr. Caul- field added, "we couldn't accept water from them as it is now." Mr. Caulfield said that we are expected to make a recommendation to the City Council to either accept the agreement as it is or provide whatever it is we choose to say about it. Dave Stewart asked if there was some way to state that we don't accept water from the District without Water Board approval. He further questioned whether there is any intention of meeting the level of treatment that is equal to ours. "I would have trouble signing the agreement if that's not Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 6 going to happen," he stated. "On the question of the intention, Mr. Caulfield began, "I have been to all of the meetings and they don't reveal any dis-intention. "The intention seems to be, at least on the face of it, that with the 10 MGD expansion it will be a plant that will produce the proper level of treatment, he conti- nued. The real point is that this agreement doesn't come into operation for an exchange of water until a plant is completed that meets those standards and we would accept the water quality from the new expansion. "I think that's where the protection is from our point of view," he assured the Board. In the meantime, they are going to buy our treated water to meet their needs at our water quality. We are going to this question of a com- bined system in any case, he said. He suggested another scenario: Even without a combined system and they construct their own 10 MGD plant, then the question will be, at what point is the water quality at that new plant adequate for us to accept? Isn't this the first question that the Water Quality Committee will have to deal with, Ben Alexander asked: "Will we receive water from the existing District plant?" He doesn't see anything in the agreement that says the new plant has to be built. Dave Stewart added, "it just has to meet MCLs, doesn't it?" "What the agreement says now," Mike Smith responded, "is if they can meet what's in the agreement, the MCLs and RMCLs plus exhibit E, then we will take the water." Then it's up to the Committee to decide whether we will or not, even if it doesn't meet Exhibit E, Ben Alexander asked. "No, I don't think so," Mr. Smith replied. "It's my understanding that the Committee's only charge according to the agreement is Exhibit E, Mr. Caulfield explained. "Let's say it didn't meet some part of Exhibit E. The Water Quality Committee would then meet and say "is that really essential?" "I think we can address what Dave Stewart's concerns are," Mr. Smith said, "on p. 9, No. 8., Effective Date and Term of Agreement. "We could expand paragraph (a) where we are supposed to put a date in as to when the exchange will start. Instead of putting in a date, we could put in some language to the effect that we can't do the exchange now because the District's plant can't meet the standards. "We anticipate the District will be doing 'such and such' and when they do that and meet it, we will begin the exchange," he suggested. "What would be the conditions under which we would take water from them," Mr. Stewart asked. "If they have their new plant in operation, which will be a conventional plant, and they can meet the standards, then we will begin the exchange," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Smith stressed that we are just exchanging water so we don't give away our capacity. In other words, if we give them 3 million gallons a day, we want 3 MGD back, so they aren't using our capacity. "If we take it back, we want it to be the right quality," he added. If we had a lot of excess capacity to start with, we might have pushed for outright sale for the long term and not have entered into the Water Board Mites • September 15, 1989 Page 7 exchange, he explained. Henry Caulfield said that at the meeting staff didn't commit themselves to a certain capacity. "What have you done subsequent to that?" he asked. Staff is making some projections and will do some cost analyses too, Mr. Smith replied. "It looks like we can give them 2 million gallons a day just out- right sale for the next couple of years," he said. When we had our peak day this summer of 61.7 the District was already taking over a million gallons. With the optimization of the plant, there will be another 10 MGD. He said we wouldn't want to commit for too long, however. "If our growth rate should pick up for some reason to 4-6%, that time would come a lot sooner." Henry Caulfield pointed out that there is a concern that sometime in the future 1/3 of the citizens of Fort Collins are going to be getting water from the tri-district plant. "That's why there is a long term push on our part to beef up the water quality of that plant in a way that is practical." Tim Dow asked what our alternatives are, assuming that Council wants us to try to resolve something with the District long term. Are they: 1) You must meet our standards; 2) Do whatever you want as long as you meet the minimum standards; 3) The agreement. Mr. Smith replied that those were the alternatives. We tried to require No. 1 to begin with and they refused, and we rejected the second alternative. He believes there is enough financial incentive on the District's part as far as the pipeline is concerned, that they are willing to meet those extra standards "if we tell them what those standards are." The concern staff has is in the future staff hopes they can change those as the need arises. If parts of an agreement can be modified later on, Tim Dow proposed, "why not throw out the Committee, and have the agreement between the City and the District?" If at some point in the future, there is a problem, let's not have a committee; let's have the real parties get together and decide whether or not they want to make some adjustments," he asserted. Mike Smith responded that the City was comfortable doing that but what the District wants is binding arbitration, and the committee is a substitute for that. What's the District's peak day usage, Tom Moore asked. About 10 MGD, was the answer. So we can supply all their water needs, Mr. Moore continued. Mr. Smith replied that they don't want all their water needs supplied for awhile; just 2-3 MGD for the summer. Tom Moore asked why we can't provide their whole supply. That would give us some financial basis to expand our treatment plant even further and we could control the water, he contends. "We don't disagree with you," Mr. Smith replied, "but we don't have enough capacity. We would have to start today to have even more in order to have enough to supply them totally." "We have three years," Mr. Moore asserted. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 8 If our peak day is 60 MGD and we expand to 74 MGD and the District has 10, that adds up to 70 MGD. Between the growth of the District and the City, we would probably use up that remaining 4 MGD in a couple of years, Mr. Smith pointed out. Mr. Moore clarified that his intention was not to take over the District, but just treat all of the water they want. Mr. Caulfield explained "if they got into that kind of deal they might think that we could pull the plug on them. What we are aiming at is working towards a combined water production on a permanent basis where we can't pull the plug on them nor they on us." He emphasized that it's the only possible deal we could sell them on. "I don't think this closes the option of sup- plying them with all their treated water," Mr. Smith added. "Why should we even take the chance of playing around with something we aren't very comfortable with," Mr. Moore argued. Right now they are very touchy about the relationship with us, Mr. Caulfield cautioned, and that's one thing we must consider. "Give them financial incentives that makes it a deal that they want to do," Mr. Moore insisted. "They would have to build a new pipeline in order to serve the additional capacity," Dave Stewart reiterated. What are they looking at to do that? "They would probably have to build a 24" costing $2-2 1/2 million, Mr. Smith replied. "So it wouldn't be too hard for them to finance that," Mr. Stewart responded. In the long run it's less expensive for them to participate in an exchange and pay the Utility than to construct a pipeline, Mr. Smith said, "because we built the pipeline large enough and it's cheaper than building two." One of the things the City is going to study in the next 6-12 months, Mr. Smith related, is to expand our facility by a larger amount and serve the District. The study will show what that will cost and it is hoped it will show what the 0&M costs will be. At that time we may have some facts and figures to say to the District: "We can provide all of your treatment capac- ity for this amount." MaryLou Smith favors Tom Moore's approach. She stated that, "in other words we would be willing to give a little financially to make it feasible for them so that we could move in the direction of providing the quality and having the control over the quality that we really think should be there for the citizens of Fort Collins." Tom Moore contends that it's not going to make a great deal of difference 20 years from now anyway because the growth will have moved into that area. Ms. Smith asked how we can promote Tom Moore's approach without the District feeling as though we are pulling the "rug out from under them?" The agree- ment gives them kind of an insurance policy, Mike Smith explained. If we 0 Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 9 said at this point we weren't going to go through with the agreement, and offer them another option, we might make them nervous enough to say, "let's just forget the whole deal!" Marylou Smith asked if there is some way to approve this agreement and in the meantime give the staff a clear direction that the Water Board wants to move towards looking at a study that would consider supplying all of the District's needs. Then we might come up with a proposal that they might find palatable financially, and go with that before any of this would be imple- mented. Henry Caulfield stated: "That's in effect what we have been talking about. We don't use the words 'we supply;' that, they would object to." Mike Smith said the District would like some representation in the process, and it may be that a paper authority could be created which, in effect, would run the treatment plant, with the City and the District being a part of the authority. Mr. Caulfield emphasized that it must be a joint enter- prise instead of our doing it for them and that is quite a part from econom- ics. Tim Dow asked how important the higher standards are in terms of health effects and those kinds of concerns? "If I'm drinking the water, I'd like to have it as clean as possible," he stressed. "From what I understand," Mike Smith replied, "doing less than what we are doing now is not doing our job." Two to five to ten years from now we will say we thought we were doing a good job when we weren't. "I don't think we have seen the end of the tunnel in the issue of improving the water quality," he stressed. Mr. Moore believes that we should have the flexibility to change the water quality standards without going through a 7-person committee, 5 of whom are not really part of the City. "The bottom line on the committee, Mr. Smith assured the Board, "is if the issue is really important, and we and the Water Board strongly believe in it, and we convince the Council also, even. if the District doesn't agree, we cancel each other out." Tim Dow said he is personally opposed to the committee, "unless some expert convinces me otherwise. It seems that our policy ought to be to have the highest quality standards that we can. A compromise in an area that is going to be 1/3 to 1/2 of the City doesn't make any sense." He likes Tom Moore's approach. "Let's see if we can't find a way to make it an economically and politically acceptable deal," he emphasized. On the other hand, MaryLou Smith said that she can understand what Mike Smith, Henry Caulfield and Rich Shannon are saying. They have all attended these meetings and they have the bottom line sense that the District isn't going to accept a new proposal right now. "We can buy some time if we can come up with something that they can sign right now, and in the meantime investigate the broader approach." She also expressed some reservations about the committee. What if the Water Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 10 Board would say today that they are willing to promote this if the language reads that the committee can make decisions about whether the standards should be raised, but they can not choose to lower the standards, she sug- gested. Tom Sanders arrived late and wanted to express his views about the agreement at this point. He believes that the water quality issue is critical. Nev- ertheless, he thinks an agreement with the District is good and he also thinks it is important to move towards some kind of metropolitan organiza- tion in the future. He stated, however, that he is vehemently opposed to giving in on the water quality issue. He doesn't believe that we can sign an agreement and take care of the water quality at a later time. "It will not happen," he asserted. He wants the water quality standards to be accepted when the agreement is signed. A compromise is not acceptable. In the future we are going to be required to meet what we treat above the stan- dards now," he contends. Mr. Caulfield stated that as he reads the agreement, given Exhibit E, it's all there. The real question is what could the water quality committee do to disturb it. Dr. Sanders pointed out the words "reasonable attempt" in the agreement (F on p. 5): "What does that mean in this context?" They don't have the capability to do it now, he added. Mr. Caulfield responded that as he understands it, the agreement doesn't come into operation until there is a new 10 MGD plant. There is another agreement that is being fashioned now to sell them water for the next sev- eral years. He also stated that it has been the objective of the Water Board to work towards a combined unit in which there is one water monitoring set-up for the whole enterprise; one water production unit that takes care of the City, Fort Collins -Loveland and ELCO. The problem is to take steps to make that happen. As Mr. Caulfield sees it, this agreement is a feasible step towards that end. What are our advantages for entering into the agreement, Neil Grigg wanted to know. The objective of regionalization is a good goal. Why is the agreement good for the City? "If we get past the water quality issues, the bottom line is we are sharing the facility and getting paid for it and we are getting some return on our investment by sharing the pipeline." An important question for us to deal with. now, Dr. Grigg continued, are the potential complications of how the committee would function and how the water quality might go. Are those concerns sufficiently serious to outweigh the benefits of the pipeline in a tactical sense? "I was in a mood to say let's go ahead with it," he said, "but I have listened to what others say, and I am wondering if those concerns are sufficient to overrule the bene- fits." There is another benefit that Mike Smith has alluded to that Dr. Grigg would want to take seriously and that is the good will of the District, as well as taking advantage of the investment of time and effort that has gone into the meetings. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page it Marylou Smith thinks another benefit is that we have the opportunity to create a situation where we can provide better quality water for those citi- zens of Fort Colins who are in the District; and that's going to become a larger number in future years. "If we close the door, we may be losing that opportunity." Neil Grigg explained that, in his opinion, there are two dimensions to the water quality issue. The big issue is what are the District's intentions? What are their capabilities given that we are dealing with a smaller entity, without the finances and sophistication that we have.? If we went into the agreement and something happened regarding the water quality issue, our options would be limited. We would already be sharing the pipeline, etc. "It's fair to say, Henry Caulfield related, "that when we oversized the pipeline, we took the first step in going along this line. We knew this was coming." "The step I'm thinking of, Dr. Grigg responded, "is why we say yes they can share. Have we already taken that step?" "It was implicit ear- lier, Mr. Caulfield replied. "When we began 4-5 years ago, we even said they could own half of it," Mike Smith added. Mr. Smith said there are some safety valves in this that perhaps could get us to Tom Sanders' point. If we are exchanging water with them and they don't meet our conditions, we can shut them off, but that doesn't mean that we shut down. We can keep delivering, but we don't need to take water as long as we have excess capacity. "Talk about bad will," Tom Moore remarked. "But what I am saying is throughout the agreement," Mike Smith pointed out. Mr. Moore suggested that the Board table the agreement and take a bolder step by saying: "The Water Board wants to supply you with water. What will it take to do that?" Mr. Caulfield said that the City Council plans to take this up in October. As far as the two council members on the steering committee, they think this agreement is okay. We can't just table it. We must recommend against it or recommend in favor of it with modifications. He added that part of the relationship issue with the District relies on the question of prompt action and that committed to by the two City Council members at the meeting. Regarding Neil Grigg's comment, Tom Sanders doesn't believe the City is changing the rules. "We have already shown good faith by investing increased dollars to put the 60" pipe in. Where did the idea evolve that we would go down to their standards?" As he recalls, two years ago the Engi- neering Committee agreed that a cooperative effort was a good idea as long as they met the City's standards. Henry Caulfield pointed out that they are willing to sign Exhibit E stating that they will meet our standards. "Wait a second," Dave Stewart argued. "They said they will meet Exhibit E and the MCLs and that they will make every 'reasonable attempt' to meet MCL Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 12 goals which are not required, but they will make an effort to do that as well to the secondary maximum contaminant levels. He contends that is not the same thing. Are the MCL goals different in the Drinking Water Act from MCLs, Neil Grigg asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied, "you must meet the MCLs. There isn't an option." Mr. Caulfield asked attorney Paul Eckman about the interpretation of the words "reasonable effort". That's for the other goals, not included in Exhibit E, he explained. Paragraph b in Exhibit E says they shall meet or be better than all the EPA water quality standards. It's not just a "rea- sonable attempt" in Exhibit E, he stressed. So the only things that reason- able attempt applies to are beyond Exhibit E, MaryLou Smith stated. "But things that we meet on a daily basis," Dave Stewart argued. "If we meet them on a daily basis, why aren't they in Exhibit E," Ms. Smith questioned. Mike Smith explained that "we don't meet all the goals. We reasonably try to meet them too," he added. Ben Alexander clarified that there are EPA specified goals and secondary standards. This has created problems in a couple of states that have adopted these secondary standards as their primary standards, he explained, because for example, they might set a goal of "0". The detection level is above "0" so it leaves you in a dilemma. "There are absolute standards in there that they must meet. The goals that the federal government and the state would like us to get to eventually, we want the District to get to also, just as we are trying to meet them, Mr. Smith explained. "I don't think you want to force them or us to meet the goals absolutely all the time, because you may not need to. However, it is definitely something we need to shoot towards," he stressed. Tom Sanders and Dave Stewart remained uncomfortable with the philosophy. Mike Smith stated that you can't write in philosophy. "We can't write in that "you are going to be a born again water quality person," he said with a smile. "The way I understand it," Mark Casey began, "if they don't meet Exhibit E, we can refuse their water. If we refuse the water what are the implications to us and them?" "If we have additional capacity at that time, nothing changes," Mike Smith replied. The City continues to give them water and they have excess capacity. He emphasized that no customer sees any change. Neil Grigg said he was going to vote for the agreement for the following reasons: We are looking at something that has a risk in it and some of us are less comfortable with a risk than others, he began. It's a risk that there would be a failure in implementing the agreement. As he sees it, even if the water quality of the District was compromised somehow, as long as they met some basic standards, we are not talking about a health issue. We are talking about water quality and quality of life, he believes. The risk to the citizens is not a health risk, he stressed. The issue that he Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 13 believes is really important is the future of metropolitan cooperation. "If we vote yes on the agreement and move ahead, I think that's going to improve the prospects for cooperation ahead, although we do accept a risk. If we vote no on this agreement at this time, it's not clear what the next steps are going to be. For one, the City Council may reverse us." But, it seems to Dr. Grigg, on balance cooperation is going to be set back. He believes the City should play a key role in the development of a new regional treat- ment facility; meaning that we would have some control over the standards and the operation, a quality operation. Neil Grill then moved that the Water Board approve the agreement and Terry Podmore provided a second. Marylou Smith asked what the effect would be if the agreement stated that the committee would not have the right to agree to any standards lower than Exhibit E. Mike Smith replied that if both parties have mutually agreed to modify a standard to make it less strict for some reason --perhaps because it was determined that it wasn't needed --that's probably okay. Now the agreement reads that the committee can change things that are not agreeable to both parties. It might be to the City's disadvantage to put in language that the standards can not be made less strict. But, Mr. Smith stressed if it is made less strict, he thinks that someone other than the Water Quality Committee should do it. Both parties at a higher level should agree on the change. Marylou Smith amended the motion to read that the Water Board would like the Council to review the agreement to assure that the appeals process makes certain that we would not be lowering Exhibit E standards without the con- sent of both parties. Paul Eckman said it goes without saying that the governing bodies themselves could always at any time, decide to change the agreement. He paraphrased Ms. Smith's amendment. The Committee should not be allowed to lower the standards in Exhibit E, as they presently can, unless appealed. If there were to be any lowering of the standards, it must be made through the gov- erning bodies themselves. Ms. Smith agreed to offer that as her "friendly" amendment. Tom Sanders asked why it is an even split on representation when it's obviously not an even split in the system. "It's not fair because every- thing is not equal," he insisted. Henry Caulfield said given the history of the whole issue it's a delicate situation. Neil Grigg clarified that it's not like we are going equally into a joint venture where we are paying most of the money and splitting the benefits in half. "We have 100% of the options on a lot of things we can do," he said. He feels confident that every time the City is faced with a decision, we will look at the politics and the technical aspects of it and make the best decision. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 14 Dave Stewart proposed a second qualification to the motion relating to p. 9, 8 (a). He would like language in the motion stating that there must be a new plant before the agreement becomes effective. Neil Grigg said if the District accepts it, that seems like a good change. Mike Smith said that staff will try to incorporate these changes in the agreement before it is taken to the Council. Henry Caulfield said he would like it indicated that the changes were part of the Water Board's discussion and agreement. "For the record, what's staff's recommendation on this," Tom Moore asked. "I think we have gone a long ways to try to get something that is acceptable to both sides," Mike Smith responded. "It's not the perfect agreement and staff recognizes that," he acknowledged. "It's a give and take arrangement. The City has some risks; the District has some risks too. In the spirit of cooperation directed by the Council, "we have done about as well as we can in negotiating the agreement." In the future, the issue will be can staff and the Water Board convince the City Council if we need to change the water quality standards. Henry Caulfield related that the agreement comes back through the Water Board, and he will argue strongly that it remains that way. Mike Smith pointed out that staff has the concern that if in the future the Water Board does not have members who are concerned about water quality, the standards could be affected also. In answer to Tom Moore's question, staff recommends the agreement with a qualified yes, Mike Smith stated. Tim Dow observed that if the two elected entities have the final say anyway, why not just eliminate the committee? Henry Caulfield explained that the committee was negotiated as a substitute for arbitration. "If we took it out, there would be hell to pay." Mark Casey asked if this is the best deal we can get at this time and if the Water Board doesn't accept it will the door be shut for the foreseeable future? "I think if we say no and the Council says no, the District will look to other alternatives and build their own pipeline," Mr. Smith replied. "I'm not sure it closes the door for the future, but'I'm sure that it closes the door to sharing the pipeline," he added. Mark Casey said he would feel better about it if staff's endorsement was stronger. "It's risky," Mr. Smith admitted. "There are no absolutes. I think it will work, but I recognize there are risks," he emphasized. "If it's going to work, it's going to take all of us to make it work!" "Isn't this kind of an interim agreement," Terry Podmore asked; in other words, a step before something else." "That's right, but if there isn't something else, it stays the way it is for a long time," Mr. Smith responded. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 15 The question was called. The Board was polled with a show of hands. Caul- field, Podmore, Smith, Moore, Dow, Clopper, Grigg and Stewart voted yes and Sanders and Casey voted no for reasons stated previously. The motion, including both amendments, carried 8-2. Lease of Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Site Mike Smith briefly explained, as he had at the end of the August meeting, that the State Parks Division hasn't been able to do anything with the treatment plant site because they ran into a snag with the State Highway Dept. The Highway Dept. said there can't be the kind of access the Park Division was anticipating because of the unsafe condition of the existing road. They will be required to modify the entrance to the water plant in order to allow public access. Those modifications will cost them around $80,000. The Parks Division is asking the City to consider extending their five year lease to at least 10 years, so they can get their investment out of it. Two options were given to the City by the state: 1) Would the City agree to make the modifications to the road? 2) If the State Parks Division pays for the modifications, will the City give them a longer lease so they can at least realize their investment. Mike Smith asked for some direction from the Board. Have you done an estimate on how much the project will cost, Tom Moore asked. If we do the modifications, staff will have our people get serious about a cost estimate, if the state is going to do it, we will let them take care of it, Mike Smith responded. Mr. Moore also wanted to know what it would cost to do the cost estimate. "It will cost about $1500-2,000," he said. Tom Sanders wanted to know if we agree to the 10 year lease does that pre- clude us from doing anything in there for 10 years? "I suppose you could have some termination clauses in there if something happened," Mr. Smith replied, "or you could buy them out for whatever they have invested." Henry Caulfield reminded the Board that this site would be in the bottom of the reservoir should a dam be built at Grey Mountain, although the Board has never take a position on the proposed dam. We have, however, avoided get- ting ourselves into a bind for this type of situation. "The question is, is 10 years a bind?" Tom Moore made it clear that, in his opinion, there is virtually no chance that the site will be flooded in 10 years because of a dam. Mary Lou Smith said she is not so sure she wants "to tie our hands for 10 years, and put that much money into it as well." "Don't forget if the state can't provide a safe road there, the whole thing is off," Mr. Caulfield stated. They can't use the land for parking, river activities, etc. There would be a real citizen protest! Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 16 Tom Moore thinks it should be used by the Citizens of Fort Collins Mike Smith pointed out that the County Commissioners support the idea and the City Council also likes the idea. Tom Sanders recalled that they plan to do some other things with the site, like fishing ponds, etc. It was pointed out that they weren't going to start that development for several years. If they went to a 10-year lease, would they start that development, Mr. Caulfield asked. "Yes, they might start on the back side in 10 years," Mr. Smith replied, "if they have the money and the support." Mr. Caulfield suggested that we try to discourage them from taking a long term approach or making a big investment beyond the $80,000. Mr. Smith asked Paul Eckman if we can put language into an agreement to make it clear that this is strictly limited to a 10-year period. "We can say that," he replied, "but that may not change their expectations." Mike Smith suggested that we leave the option open that if the City really needs the property in 10 years, we will pay them. Tom Moore proposed that the City give them a solid 5-year lease and after that we have the option to buy it out based on 1/5 of the remaining half of that, if we terminate the lease. MaryLou Smith brought up the point that if the State Park's project is successful, the public will grow to like it, and it will be a public rela- tions problem for us to want it back. We need to make a decision now as to how likely it is that we are going to need it in 10 years. "If we think we are going to want it then, we need to say that now," she asserted. "It depends on what we want it for," Mr. Smith stated. Neil Grigg asked, "what could we possibly want to do with it?" The only possibility at this point, because we have pipelines there, is if some new technology comes along, we may want to treat water there again, Mr. Smith said. "What's going to happen to the houses there," Tom Sanders asked. "That's part of the $1.00 a year lease agreement," Mr. Smith answered. "That's ridiculous," Dr. Sanders, argued. Mike Smith assured the group that we are supposed to get some care -taking out of this arrangement. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board express its general support for extending the lease 10 years subject to the buy-back proposal that was expressed by Tom Moore. Tim Dow seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-1 with Tom Sanders casting the negative vote for rea- sons expressed during the discussion. Letter from Ward Fischer Regarding the Water Bank Idea Copies of the letter from Mr. Fischer were distributed with the packets. Dave Stewart explained that the Chamber of Commerce has formed a water com- Y Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 17 mittee of which he is chairman. Neil Grigg and Ward Fischer are part of the subcommittee. Mr. Stewart said that the Chamber is looking at several things to try to protect the natural resources of Northern Colorado. One of those is to establish a water authority that would 1) hopefully scare off predators and 2) the banking of water which would help by pooling the water and keeping it in Northern Co. Mr. Fischer in his letter outlines the issues in his letter along with their advantages and disadvantages. What the committee is trying to do now is get an indication whether the cities are interested in this kind of a concept. Mr. Stewart thinks there are some advantages to the City of Fort Collins being a part of this "because we are probably the fastest growing community in Northern Colorado right now." Neil Grigg said that Ward Fischer suggested the water boards from Greeley, Loveland, Longmont and Fort Collins get together. Dr. Grigg has already discussed this with Mike Smith and Henry Caulfield. "We agreed that there is no reason why those boards couldn't meet, but probably that's not the right next step. He wrote Ward Fischer a letter suggesting that the other water boards from the region should first receive a letter explaining all of this. Then, it might be that the water utility directors and water board presi- dents ought to sit down over lunch and discuss it, and move step by step to see how much interest there in the "water bank" idea. Dr. Grigg pointed out that there is another sub -committee on water manage- ment which will be looking at regional issues. Henry Caulfield's question is this: The Cities of Loveland, Greeley, and Fort Collins have bought water themselves, but "as you know, the bulk of the water that is going to be needed by the years 2035 is going to have to be supplied by the developers, not by us." The water bank idea to be meaning - full, is not particularly needed by us; it's needed by the developers." How you organize the developers in such a way to supply us with the water in a timely matter according to policy, is the big issue. "I don't see that reflected in the letter," he concluded. "It isn't, for a couple of reasons, Dave Stewart responded. 1) When growth is good, there are a lot of developers and the reverse is true when it isn't. 2) Developers are not known for their long term thinking; say 30-50 years ahead. Cities, on the other hand, have the ability and the responsi- bility for planning ahead. It is an opportunity for the cities to begin participating in some discussions that will directly affect them 30-50 years from now. "On the other hand, a water bank trying to provide for the total amount of water needed by the year 2035 would be a very large sum," Henry Caulfield observed. It would be $50-70 million; not just the $7 million we paid. The investment and interest on that money would be considerable. You could prob- ably get your assessment costs back, but not much more than that. Henry Caulfield asked: "Have you considered establishing a non-profit Water Board Minutes September 15, 1989 Page 18 corporation that could buy the water and then have some way in which the new developers could buy in later on?" In other words, something that wouldn't involve the cities, but nevertheless protect the developer from paying excessive prices, or even being precluded from getting water. "It seems to me, that ought to be explored," he suggested. That's a good point, Dave Stewart responded. He still believes, however, that this is not going to go if the cities don't support it in some way. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that when fort Collins tried to take leadership on this issue before, "we came up with a fat 0!" "I think what we are trying to do here is take a more wide reaching approach," Mr. Stewart explained. We have representatives from ditch compa- nies, environmental groups, businesses, etc. involved. The Chamber's inter- est in this is a part of the economic development issue. They know we aren't going to grow without water. Dave Stewart related that the other opportunity they have talked about is an overall management approach to water; an authority that would get a better mix of water and optimize the usage. He thinks Neil Grigg's idea to get the water managers from the cities and the water board presidents together is a good approach to that. We have an institution here called the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Mr. Caulfield pointed out. The District is involved in this com- mittee also, Dave Stewart responded. They have their own optimization study ready to go. Other Business When are we going to discuss Halligan Reservoir, Tom Sanders asked. Dave Stewart announced that he is trying to get an Engineering Committee meeting scheduled to discuss that. He then asked the Committee to remain after the meeting to pick a date. Tom Sanders thanked staff for the outstanding experience they provided for those who participated in the tour of the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir on September 7. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. rn 7'/, . Water Board Secretary