Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/21/19890 Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann, Marylou Smith, Dave Stewart, Tom Brown, Mark Casey (alt), Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Webb Jones, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Wendy Williams, Molly Nortier Guests Larry Simpson, General Manager, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Loren Maxey, City Council Liaison to the Water Board Members Absent Terry Podmore, Tim Dow President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Introduction of New Members Chairman Caulfield introduced the new Water Board members. Regular member Thomas C. Brown is employed with the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Junior Alternate Paul E. Clopper, is a Senior Water Resources Engineer with Simons Li & Associates, Inc. Minutes The minutes of June 16, 1989 were approved as distributed. Larry Simpson, General Manager of the NCWCD, began by informing the Board on the condition of the water supply system. The Big Thompson project is in fairly.good shape he said. "We'll be able to deliver the 100% quota this year, and probably 100% next year if we have a dry year." Currently they are trading on the deficit and pulling out the reserves rather heavily. Their prognostication is that local storage by and large will be down to the lowest levels of record by the end of this year. For example, many of the direct flow decrees in agriculture never came into priority this year as well as a large number of the later reservoir decrees. Essentially around this region we have been pulling storage since the middle of June; in some cases before that. We are in a major deficit situation through the overall system which is about 55% of average. There has been almost no significant precipitation other than scattered showers since the May rains, and those didn't have a widespread impact. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 2 Henry Caulfield mentioned the article that appeared recently in the Coloradoan newspaper in which Larry Simpson was interviewed. Mr. Simpson explained that he had been testifying before a legislative interim committee. Because of the major drought situation, he advocated that water conservation and restrictions should be encouraged right now. Next year, if this continues, it may be too late to do much, he said. "That was a point I was making to the legislative committee and it was included in the article." In his testimony he primarily addressed that need for storage "and conservation in this region basically means storing it so you have it available," he added. He also pointed out to the Committee that one of the major concerns he has is the prevalent notion that because agriculture in the state has 85-90% of the water, and 85% of that is used on low value crops, cities believe that taking the water from those crops would in essence provide all the water cities would ever need. "Dr. Gray at CSU released a good study but he missed the point that the majority of the agriculture water is unattainable for city use," Mr. Simpson explained. It is basically opportunity water or direct flow water. "It's water that is available when the snow melts; once it is used by the farmer or it's gone, one or the other." If the cities, as Thornton did, buy up the water, they are not interested in that direct flow water because frankly they can't use it without building storage. He also pointed out to them that if in fact cities like Thornton come north and buy that water, their impact on agriculture is going to be far greater than Dr. Gray's previous study of 2 acre feet per acre of dry -up. "In fact what they are doing is using that storage water that is used to finish up the crops in July and August. That amount of water is probably servicing 4 acres of land. Instead of drying of 2 acre feet you are more likely drying up 4 acres of land from high value crops as we know them by taking that acre foot of stored water." Essentially what will be happening is that farmers will be relegated to raising the early summer small grains; barley, some pinto beans, crops that are germinated and finished by the first of August. "Therefore, the old statement that you just take it from agriculture and you won't have to build storage is totally false," he asserted. The other statement that appeared in the newspaper wasn't even addressed in his testimony to the committee of the legislature. The reporter from the Coloradoan interviewed him after the session was ended. He asked Mr. Simpson what Fort Collins could be doing now to cope with droughts. "I started talking about watering restrictions, etc.," he recalled. The reporter brought up the question about metering and I responded that annually I must submit a conservation plan for northern Colorado explaining what we are doing both in agriculture and the municipal areas because of our involvement with a federal project." He related to the reporter that metering is a grave concern of the federal government, and Fort Collins is the only city of any size within the District that is not entirely metered. He stressed that he is not an advocate of metering as an alternative to development. "Fort Collins may encounter pressure to meter brought by the federal government through the District," he speculated; "at least a minimal program where new homes are metered." Water Board Minutes• • July 21, 1989 Page 3 Tom Sanders asked if the government has a legal way to do that, "like cutting off water from CBT if we don't." "I don't believe they can cut off the CBT water and I think we would fight them trying to restrict the manner in which we allot the water," Mr. Simpson responded. However, there are other ways they can use leverage. President Caulfield stated that the Water Board has taken its initiative on the metering issue to the Council and they rejected it. The next step is the Council's. Mr. Caulfield added that it is entirely possible that the EPA could be the source of the pressure to meter. Mr. Simpson said he has been directed by the federal government to propose conservation measures to the farmers and to the municipalities within the District. He is currently in the process of drafting a letter to that effect. Staff asked that Mr. Simpson send the letter to the Mayor. Historically, the District has not interfered in their constituents' business, Mr. Simpson, assured the Board, "so these letters are difficult to prepare." "I have been warned by the government that this review of our conservation plan will be very strenuous," he stressed. Ray Herrmann asked at what point we cut off junior rights if we continue to get dryer. Our job is to try to stabilize the water supply in the area, Mr. Simpson replied. "We do that by careful monitoring of our water sheds and storage. Annually we try to add enough water to the system to maintain a normal supply." They did that this year with a 100% quota. Next year they will probably go with 100% if the situation remains the same. "The system works for about 2-2 1/2 years. Then we are out of luck," he said. "Who owns the water rights under Colorado adjudication for the CBT water," Neil Grigg asked. They are vested in the U.S. government and they are vested so that the NCWCD and its constituents have perpetual use of all the water, Mr. Simpson responded. NCWCD Water Carryover Program Mr. Caulfield asked that the Board direct its discussion to the NCWCD Water Carry-over program, the next item on the agenda. Mr. Simpson explained that the carry-over program was initiated on a trial basis and essentially it is a year by year evaluation of the need for carrying over or not carrying over water at the end of the season. This was begun about 3 years ago. During the wet years there is a great value to keeping the water in the Big Thompson system and saving the storage capacity of the tributary water sheds to capture tributary water. That was the original intent of the program to allow entities to hold their water in credit. If they did not fill their local storage in the next year with tributary water, they could then call their carry-over water. Basically, it was a management tool. Several problems have developed from this, he continued. In the past 4 or 5 years, before this program, many water users would just cancel their allotment and it would go back to the pool, making it available the next year. The bad part of the old system was that everyone started running that water for storage so we were losing some to shrink and some to the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, the program was instituted to allow carry-over. When the program began, the District pointed out that this was an alternative where "if you Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 4 don't need the water in the spring, leave it in the pool, but unfortunately we found that cities were beginning to hoard that water rather than renting it out on the farm markets," he said. He explained that the District Board originally established a policy to allow cities to acquire more water; up to 100% of their current demand, for future planning and future use, but with the explicit understanding that until that was actually needed by the City, it would be rented at a reasonable rate to the farming community. That gave the cities additional water for future planning and day to day use without jeopardizing the agricultural system. However the District found that within the last two years, cities were not honoring that stipulation and instead were hoarding the additional water. Therefore, considering the 100% quota and the very dry year, the Board voted to temporarily end the carry-over program. "We are still searching for a management tool where people are all working together to get the job done right," he assured. One possibility that has been discussed is differential quotas, where if we make a 100% quota to meet the agricultural needs, the cities have perhaps a constant 70% quota that they can rely on from year to year. That works for some cities. It doesn't for Fort Collins because they designed their system for reliance on tributary water supplies to maintain that fluctuation of quota from CBT. Mr. Caulfield clarified the term carry-over water. At the end of the water year, usually October, if there is no carry-over program, it means that any water you have at that time is cancelled and the water goes into the pool. Whereas, if there is a carry-over policy, that balance is still alive for you. During the winter you can draw on that water for you needs. "As I understand the effect of what the District has done," he continued, any balance available at the end of the water season this year, will be cancelled." For our winter water we will begin drawing on our next year's allotment. Furthermore, as far as Mr. Caulfield is aware, the City of Fort Collins has not been one of the guilty parties with regard to rental water for agriculture. "As far as I know, our staff has been very active in renting water, including the water that we bought this year." Mr. Simpson agreed that Fort Collins has not been one to hold on to big blocks of water towards the end of May. He added that he has discussed this with Dennis Bode and asked him to help devise a system that makes,some sense. Dennis Bode commented on how the carry-over program has worked for Fort Collins. He referred to a handout with Mr. Simpson's letter of notification of the cancellation of the carry-over policy; a letter dated October 18, 1985 to Mr. Simpson from former Water Board president Norm Evans when the policy was adopted; and a table with CBT carry-over water history from 1973 to the present to give a feel for how the CBT water works at the end of the season. "Over the years the City has left anywhere from 200 AF to 5,000-6,000 AF in Horsetooth," Mr. Bode explained. Until the carry-over program, that just went back into the common pool for everybody's benefit. "One of our concerns," he continued, "was the inequity in doing that. Some folks may have used all their water while others may not have needed it in Water Board Minutes• • July 21, 1989 Page 5 that particular year." One of the real benefits of the carry-over program was to give the cities and the farmers flexibility; if they didn't use it, they could carry it over and use it next spring. It has given Fort Collins some flexibility in its planning. "We normally depend on Horsetooth water for those last few months in the fall season." It is difficult to determine just what the demands are going to be in September and October and there generally isn't a chance to rent the water after about the middle of August in most years. "In order to have enough water on hand, the carry-over program worked very well for us, Mr. Bode emphasized, because we knew we had enough to meet our demands through October and anything left we knew we could use the next year." Essentially what this cancellation does to Fort Collins is that it will force us to guess more precisely what our demands will be and we will rent the water with some risk of perhaps not having the supplies at the end of the year, or we just hold it and lose it in the pool at Horsetooth at the end of the year. "I think there are some ideas for future programs, he said, "and certainly I would be willing to participate in discussions looking at a carry-over policy." "As you know, the carry-over policy was an experimental effort to begin with," Mr. Simpson reiterated. It's been in existence for three years, and each year there have been modifications. Mr. Caulfield pointed out in the carry-over table that in some wet years, '84,'85, and '86, you couldn't rent the water because there was no market for it. Those were the years the District instituted another program offering non -charge water in the spring in an attempt to evacuate the system in order to accommodate more capture on the other side of the mountains, Mr. Simpson related. "We made water available to agriculture at no charge, and the program worked very well," he said. Mr. Bode said that one possible scenario for a carry-over policy would be to allow, on an individual basis, each entity to carry over perhaps 20% of their quota into the next year and not enforcing some of the rules as far as using it in April and May. "You would simply put that in and it becomes part of the quota, and thus becomes free to move up and down the District as the market would indicate," he concluded. Mr. Simpson responded that the problem is we establish our quota for the next year by looking at the total supply available, and that 20% would have to be part of the total supply available. The place it would have an impact would be on those entities that have basically only CBT water. "I think if we can assume the attitude that we can manage the water wisely, I think we can find ways to make it work," he contends. He repeated that the program has not been cancelled. Carry-over could be instituted in some form again next year. Mr. Caulfield reminded Mr. Simpson of when Fort Collins met with the District at the time of the City's major water purchases. At that time, the City submitted a long term plan to the year 2035. "Where does that stand?" You were going to discuss the question of our plan with us. "Unfortunately, at this time it is on hold," Mr. Simpson replied. Most of his people who Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 6 were going to do the review are totally wrapped up in getting the regionalized distribution study started. He also stated that he would like to come up with a generic plan into which the Fort Collins plan will fit. He is still working on getting his Board comfortable with the idea. They are a little reluctant to adopt anything like that until the regional study is completed. "We are doing growth projections within our southern region now," he said. Tom Sanders brought up an additional point about the carry-over question. He contends that carry-over allowed us to save water and carry it over for credit the next year, but this policy of not having carry-over can be implied that we don't need to save water. "Unfortunately, that's what happens in some areas," Mr. Simpson agreed. However, what they are saying is if you don't need the water, put it back in the pool or don't draw from the pool. Mr. Simpson recalled when the all of the entities in the District thought in terms of the water benefiting the region. In the last few years that attitude has changed to "this is my water" and the spirit of cooperation has become obscure. Mr. Caulfield noted that when Fort Collins did a drought study, "we knew in drought years we would get a 100% quota. All our estimates on water availability were based on that fact." Dennis Bode clarified that it was up to a certain point --about 3 years or so. Neil Grigg asked what the regional study will do. "First we will be dealing with the south end of the system," Mr. Simpson began, "because that is where the most critical demand is currently; eventually the entire area." We are going to try to develop cooperatively, with everybody's input we can get, the best possible physical distribution system for this region for the next 50 years, in 10 year periods. This is the goal of the plan. This probably will include the economics of scale of regionalized treatment systems. This will be in the second or third phase of the study. Regionalized treatment may make sense just on the southern end. It may not even make sense there. This is one of the things the study will determine. Mark Casey asked if CBT water is being transferred out of the District by way of lease or does it look like it will in the future? "I don't see that ever happening with CBT water," Mr. Simpson asserted. With Windy Gap water, although we would like to see it stay in Northern Colorado, it appears, frankly, that the cities who have it, have a right to do what they will with what they paid for. Westminster proposed an offer to Boulder and Longmont for their Windy Gap water, but it was contingent upon their being able to access the CBT rental market in the event of a physical outage in the Windy Gap system. "I don't think our Board will ever do that," he repeated. The Board may move the boundary to the southern Boulder, Weld County line. That's probably inevitable, he concluded. Mr. Caulfield thanked Larry Simpson for giving the Water Board an extensive update. Mr. Simpson said that he would be glad to return whenever there are questions or concerns. Water Board Minutes • • July 21, 1989 Page 7 Review of Peak Day Water Use Mr. Caulfield spoke to Dennis Bode about two weeks ago suggesting that the City is possibly approaching a critical point in its treatment capacity. As a result, it might mean that there is a need for standby restrictions. He asked Mr. Bode and Mike Smith to think about it. Dennis Bode called the Board's attention to the July water use table distributed at the meeting which recorded daily use and temperatures. An "R" indicated when the temperature was a record for that day. There were 4 record days. A graph displayed at the meeting showed the fluctuations in daily use starting with May through the present time, the precipitation and the maximum temperature. The use was somewhat below average in June. Starting in July there was a block of high temps. and water use went up substantially. There was very little precip. during that period. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that our treatment capacity is currently 64 MGD and 61.7 was the high peak. Mr. Bode continued: In order to give some indication of how unusual this stretch in July is, the second sheet of the handouts shows 3-day and 7-day max temps. beginning in 1901. You can see that in 1989, using the 7-day average, we averaged 96 degrees for seven days consecutively. That's the second highest average we have seen since 1901. The year 1954 was the highest. "We are just getting into the period when we'll see shorter days and slightly cooler temps, so we think we have passed the bad period for 1989," he concluded. Paul Clopper asked what the highest peak day has been. Mr. Bode replied that the peak day of 61.7 was the highest we have ever experienced. The previous high was 55.2 on Memorial Day of this year and 2 years ago in mid -July. Marylou Smith asked what percentage of growth we've had in those 2 years since we reached that peak. Probably about 4%, Mr. Bode replied. How did we handle the situation at our treatment plants? Ben Alexander responded: "We handled it, but my staff and I felt like we had entered our Chevy in the Indianapolis 500!" Tom Moore asked if during a time like this is the plant going full out for a 24 hour period or does peaking actually affect your plant hourly? "We have to vary," Mr. Alexander replied. "There's a natural swing in the reservoir levels, and we have to pace the plant so as not to overtop the reservoirs at their fullest point. We have to vary our flow rates through the 24 hour period. There was a 12 hour period during that time when we were operating the plant at 65 MGD. "How large are the treated storage reservoirs?" Total storage is 34 million. Ray Herrmann commented that you can't store it too long once it's treated. Mike Smith related that the City is planning to expand to 74 MGD by next summer, "so we are on the track to getting more capacity." Mr. Caulfield went on to the next step involving possible restrictions. "As you know," he began, the City Manager has the authority to call for emergency restrictions." Mr. Caulfield raised the question with staff as to whether the City shouldn't have a written statement or plan where it would Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 8 know that if a problem did arise, or if we were short of treatment capacity, that the city manager could declare some kind of predetermined restrictions program to shave peaks. He acknowledged that we will have 10 MGD more treatment capacity next year and it is doubtful that we will have another episode as we had in July, so perhaps we could just drop the idea at this point. Ray Herrmann asked how many days we can run at capacity. "We think we can sustain it through the season," Mr. Alexander replied. There is a reliability factor, however. "You are depending on mechanical equipment, so there could be problems, but we believe that we could sustain at 64 MGD." If you look at the peaks, Mike Smith explained, even if your peak was 64, it's very seldom that you have 2 or 3 days in a row that you would have that same peak. Theoretically, you could have a 64 capacity and still deliver 66-70, but you are taking it out of storage and it is very risky to operate that way, he stressed. Tom Sanders suggested, if we continue this hot dry period, that we might consider odd and even restrictions. Voluntary restrictions could probably solve the problem if people began getting used to a schedule, he said. Mary Lou Smith pointed out that it was the intention of the Conservation Committee that the restriction policy we are discussing, is the kind of demand management policy that her committee intends to address. It would then be in place when and if we need to use it, she said. Shaving the peaks would be part of that demand management policy; a drought management plan would be a part of it also. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that when Council adopted our water policy plan last December, the Committee of representatives from the Water Board and Council decided not to have a policy on restrictions. In other words, we would build capacity rather than have planned restrictions. What we are talking about here is an emergency type situation. Mr. Caulfield asked why Denver is still following the diamond, circle, square restriction program. "Don't they have adequate treatment capacity?" Dennis Bode replied that it was voluntary, but that there are still certain conservation goals that they are apparently falling short on. "It is also part of the Foothills/EPAagreement," Ben Alexander added. Mr. Bode also pointed out that Denver needed to even out their peaks but he doubts that it saves much in terms of annual volume. It appears that it is the sense of the Water Board to drop the issue of restrictions at this time Mr. Caulfield stated, with the understanding that the Conservation and Public Education Committee think about some kind of an emergency restrictions plan. Water Board Minutes • July 21, 1989 Page 9 National Recreation Area Update Copies of a staff memo on the National Recreation Area were included in the packets. Linda Burger reported that City Council will be holding a work session on August 8 to review the NRA report. (Note: That meeting was subsequently postponed.) That review will be looking towards submitting the report to Congress in October. It will be taken up formally by Council the last part of August or the first of September which means if Water Board would like to have input into the Council decision, it needs to take a position today. Ms. Burger has been working with the Planning Department on the issues that were identified and discussed at the last meeting. Kari VanMeter and the consultants have been working on making the changes Water Board and staff asked for in the language of the report. "That is not yet available, but so far we haven't discovered any areas where we have asked for things to be expressed differently, and they have said no, so I don't anticipate any problems," she said. "As you may have noticed in the press accounts, there was a slightly different approach to this than we had been hearing earlier," Ms. Burger explained. The Planning Department believes that there have been a number of issues identified. Those relating to utilities as well as those brought up by property owners, etc., are complex and serious enough that it is not appropriate to make a recommendation on designation itself at this point. What they would like to do is request that the Board endorse the report assuming that the changes that we requested are made and that we also support a request for an additional study to develop the information in the areas where we were the most uncomfortable; particularly the details of a management plan for NRA which would address things like: What kind of a management plan would assure appropriate water management of the river? What kind of an arrangement with the other agencies would assure that a decision about future wastewater treatment or water quality standards is handled in a manner that considers the needs of the Utility as well as the needs of recreation? Basically that is outlined in the long paragraph at the bottom of the page of the memo, she pointed out. Neil Grigg asked if the feasibility report takes a position on designation. "No," Ms. Burger replied, "what it says is that designation is feasible if we decide that's what we want." "So if we endorse the report, nobody can imply that we are endorsing designation," Dr. Grigg said. "No, and I think if you are going to make a statement you should make that clear," she advised. Ray Herrmann recalled that the action the Board took last time was to endorse the staff recommendations. Has that changed? "Yes and no," Ms. Burger replied. At that Point we were primarily dealing with amending the report itself, and it is true you did not take the position of designation, but you also said these are the issues, but we don't have enough information to make a decision on designation. "We would like to see those issues addressed." Mr. Caulfield asked if they have agreed to make the changes we suggested. "Most of them. We haven't had a chance to discuss a couple of them yet, Ms. Burger replied. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 10 The three major ones are spelled out in the memo to Skip Noe. Those issues spelled out in the major paragraph have not been addressed. "The feeling is that it's not possible to address those issues in this report, and those are the ones that need to be taken up in the next phase of study," Ms. Burger explained. The factual clarifications in the report have been agreed to, she assured the Board. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board accept the report with the appropriate reservations; in other words that the Board accept the new staff report. The planning Department is not recommending to the Council that there be designation at this time, Mr. Caulfield asked. That's my understanding, Ms. Burger said. At this point, Neil Grigg seconded the motion. Ray Herrmann clarified that the Board is endorsing the feasibility study with the restrictions that staff has outlined in the memo; that paragraph follows: It is staff's recommendation that the Board endorse the feasibility report, with the condition that the requested changes will be incorporated. We recommend that a position on designation not be taken at this time since there are a number of unresolved issues concerning the implications of designation. Rather, we recommend that additional information be gathered in order to define boundaries, to develop a workable management plan, and to draft the necessary intergovernmental agreements. These three issues need to be addressed in terms of their impact on water management and wastewater treatment. Tom Sanders argued that he believes we are slipping into something that is similar or worse than Wild & Scenic designation on the Poudre. He said he "would probably vote against it because he is uncomfortable with this without seeing something in writing." Council member Loren Maxey said he thinks Council wants to know how this is viewed by the different boards and commissions of the City, and what the strong and weak points are about it. The Council wants to know all the reservations. "The whole meal may look good on the surface, but if you have to eat the bitter parts too, it can spoil the whole meal," he said. He concluded that he doesn't think there should be any accepting of it with doubts. Tom Sanders was still concerned about the staff wording on the memo. Ms. Burger said if the Board agrees, staff could draft a letter with Henry Caulfield's signature that would be more specific about the major concerns. Dr. Sanders said he would agree to that. A vote was taken and drafting of a staff letter as stated and the motion were supported unanimously. Committee Reports Conservation and Public Education Committee Chair MaryLou Smith reported that she has consulted with staff and the committee will begin to compile some of the data that was discussed. She added that the committee isn't planning to proceed immediately. Water Board Minutes • July 21, 1989 Page 11 Engineering Committee Mr. Caulfield suggested that Paul Clopper, the new junior alternate, be appointed to this committee. Mr. Clopper agreed to be a member. Other Business Mr. Caulfield announced that the Interim Committee of the legislature is considering a Wild & Scenic bill by the state legislature that may be an alternative institutional arrangement for what we have been talking about as an NRA. He added that he is not advocating this. He suggested that staff keep abreast of what's happening with the bill. With regard to the discussions with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, there was a letter in the packets to the chairman of the Board of the ELCO Water District. The proposed new water treatment facility which the Board heard about at the last meeting is on the topics listed in the letter, as well as water quality, drought protection, etc. "We are asking them if they would like to have a meeting to see if there are any similar areas for mutual cooperation that could benefit both the City of Fort Collins and ELCO customers. In other words, we are extending to the other potential major supplier of water to City residents, namely ELCO, the same suggestions for discussion that we are having now with Fort Collins -Loveland," Mr. Caulfield explained. Mr. Caulfield, Gerry Horak and Loren Maxey agreed that we should use the same committee that is meeting with Fort Collins -Loveland to meet with the other Districts. There has been no reply to the letter to ELCO so far. Out of City Service Request Webb Jones presented a request for out -of -city sewer service for property at 900 North Taft Hill Road owned by Warren Jordan. Water Board members were provided copies of Mr. Jordan's letter requesting service and a map showing the location of the property. Utility staff indicated Mr. Jordan's property is approximately 1/2 mile out of the City limits, but within the urban growth area. The staff pointed out that the mobile home on the site has been connected to the sewer for some time, but the owner has not been paying a monthly bill. This situation came to light when Mr. Jordan applied for a county building permit to replace the existing mobile home with a newer one. The staff recommended approval of the request providing the applicant signs a standard out -of -City service request that allows the property to be annexed when eligible, and complies with other applicable City procedures. Tom Moore asked the Utility staff to confirm that no other buildings on the site are connected to the City sewer. He then moved that the Water Board approve sewer service to Mr. Jordan's property contingent upon execution of routine agreements and procedures. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. Following a brief discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 12 Continued Other Business Henry Caulfield commented on an article in the newspaper talking about a 25% increase in sewer rates. Mike Smith explained that staff drafted a memo for Council. There were questions from the Council on our water supply which is the subject of the memo, and that went out in their packets today. Regarding the 25% increase, Mr. Smith said a draft memo was prepared and someone got hold of it and made it public. "You will be getting a copy of it when it is finalized," he assured the Board. He regrets that the press got it first. It was a budget issue that the City Manager shared with the Council to get their thoughts, he explained further. Because of the expansion coming up, which we will discuss when the study is completed, the wastewater rates will be going up 12% next year and 12% the year after, Mr. Smith informed the Board. There is no more federal funding for this kind of thing which means we are going to have to pay the whole thing and that has an impact on the ratepayers; even though it is supposed to be paid for by developers. The rate payers get caught because coverage of the bonds must be met. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that there is a state revolving fund. "We doubt that the City would qualify for that," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Caulfield announced a "Cache La Trivia" contest sponsored by the Historical Society and the Visitors Bureau in conjunction with the "New West Fest" that will be raising money to help restore and preserve the historic water works building on Overland Trail. He urged Water Board members and staff to get teams together for the event. Mike Smith said that the City has an architect working on a project to keep the building from deteriorating further. About $65,000 has been appropriated for this purpose. "That doesn't do anything but keep it from falling down," he stressed. The historical Society is interested in raising some funds to encourage the City to do something beneficial with the old building, he continued. There are several ideas for its potential use. Mr. Caulfield asked if there have been any complaints about the new septage waste transfer station. Mike Smith said we haven't had any. Loren Maxey said he could detect some odors at times when he has driven by, but he added that he has "a very sensitive sniffer." Mr. Smith said staff would continue to monitor it carefully. Tom Sanders related that he could smell sewage in the lower Poudre River recently when he took some students out there. "This is the first time in 15 years that I have noticed this," he said. It is obvious that the drought and low flows have had an impact. Dr. Sanders also requested an update on a proposed site for a new sludge farm; perhaps at the next meeting. Dave Stewart reported that Tom Gallier, Wastewater Treatment Manager, is working on that. RBD Engineering is supposed to have a report ready within the next week or so. Tom Sanders also wants to discuss the new incineration option related to that. Mike Smith believes it will be ready for the Engineering Committee, so perhaps it can Water Board Minutes July 21, 1989 Page 13 be put on the agenda for the August meeting. Neil Grigg picked up some newspaper articles showing the way the English police the wasting of water in their country. He found these articles on a recent trip to England and thought that Water Board and staff would find them interesting and amusing. He pointed out a letter from a fellow who was complaining about his rates and "if you figure it out you will discover that his family was using only 40 gallons per person per day." For that they are paying close to $5.50 per 1,000 gallons. "That's pretty expensive water!" Dr. Grigg also related that there was a fellow from Turkey at the conference who reported what they have to do in Istanbul to meet the water supply. They just make water available for 4 hours a day in their distribution system. Then they cut it off. "That manages the demand," he laughed. "It makes us feel lucky that we have a good water supply," he concluded. Since there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 777 Water Board Secretary