Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/16/1989Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, Terry Podmore, Ray Herrmann, Tim Dow, Marylou Smith, Dave Stewart, Mark Casey, (alt.) Staff Linda Burger, Wendy Williams, Andy Pineda, Ben Alexander, Molly Nortier Guest Kari VanMeter, Project Manager National Recreation Area Study Member Absent Chester Watson (alt.) President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of May 18, 1989 were approved as distributed. There was no representative of the District to give a report. Mr. Caulfield pointed out the notices in the packets regarding the NCWCD tours of their facilities for both the east and the west slopes. He encouraged anyone who hasn't already done so, to take advantage of the tours. National Recreation Area Discussion Tom Sanders, Chairman of the NRA Committee, said that the committee had met twice. The group agrees in general with the whole idea of a working river and enhancing it, as a worthwhile concept, he said. However, the committee is concerned that future impacts of the designation may impede the Utility's ability to use the River. They are concerned about the expectations and possible enhancements; specifically the mention of the 55 cfs for stream flows in the river. More specifically, they perceive that those managing the NRA might be making decisions about river rights and discharges that may conflict with what we may want. Furthermore, the Utility is looking into a site for a new wastewater treatment facility and an NRA could hamper our ability to site downstream below our No. 2 plant. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Caulfield asked for a clarification about the wastewater treatment plant site. Linda Burger explained that it is not clear yet if expansion will have to take place at a new site. "It's possible that we may be able to use the existing site for one more expansion, and then move downstream by 10 years down the road." That decision hasn't been made yet. As far as a potential site, Owen Randall said they haven't made any decisions yet but it is looking as if the most likely site would be somewhat below Timnath but in Larimer County. Dr. Sanders went on to say that another issue which may be on the periphery is the sludge farm; where it is and where it's going to be in the future, and the current composting operation. "Would this presuppose our future use of the composition facility?" At this time, because of all the unknowns, the Committee can not recommend endorsing the NRA. Kari VanMeter said that Tom Sanders has brought up a number of good points. She clarified exactly what she needs from the Board at this time. The schedule they are on necessitates getting back comment by the end of July, she explained. They welcome the kind of comment that staff put forth in their memorandum of June 14. "I'm not asking the Board to take a position on designation today," she stressed. What she would suggest is that they have time to work with the input that they've been given and revise the draft report accordingly, and respond to some of the concerns in writing. Some of what has been mentioned today is relatively new to those involved in the study; the siting of the wastewater treatment plant, for example. That definitely needs to be addressed within the draft report. She continued by saying that what she needs are any additional comments from the Board and staff that would allow them to revise the draft report accordingly. The report must be revised and presented to the City Council and Larimer County Commissioners in August. "If this Board wants to take a position on desig- nation, it can certainly wait until August to do that," she assured them. Ray Herrmann, a committee member, said that the sense of their meeting yes- terday, was they endorsed the staff comments. "At the same time, we like the plan," he said. "What's the crunch?" Tom Sanders asked. Ms. VanMeter replied, "so we can get your comments and revise the report." Mr. Caulfield said there is a further crunch in October; that's when the Forest Service has to have input to make their decisions. The Committee asked Linda Burger yesterday to contact the sewer utility in the Cuyahoga Ohio area and also those involved parties in the area of the Chatahoochee at Atlanta, Georgia. Both rivers have received NRA designa- tion. She wasn't able to contact anyone in Georgia that could be helpful in time for the meeting today, but she was able to talk to a couple of people in Ohio to see if they had any problems associated with NRA designation. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1969 Page 3 The Ohio NRA is impacted by Akron and Northeast Ohio regional sewer dis- trict that serves Cleveland. Akron so far hasn't encountered any difficul- ties in relation to NRA, but they are anticipating that there will be a change in the stream classification for recreation from secondary contact recreation to primary contact, and that there will be some additional requirements on their wastewater treatment plant as a result of primary con- tact recreation in the NRA area. Their discharge is about 1/4 mile upstream from the NRA. Northeast Ohio has had a couple of problems. They are in the process of forming a local committee which includes citizens, businesses and public agency representatives, to address problems in relation to the NRA. The committee will address water quality problems where there is concern in relation to the NRA. Prior to designation of NRA they had in place Phase I of an interceptor sewer which was subsequently included in the boundaries of the NRA. After the NRA was formed, they began construction of Phase II and have purchased the easements necessary and were ready to start construc- tion. At that point, the Park Service, which has almost total control of that particular NRA, discovered what they were doing and found a way to go in and purchase the land through which they had purchased easements; then refused to honor the easements and the sewer district was forced to abandon their intercepter and place it elsewhere. She clarified that this NRA is apparently totally controlled by the Park Service and not by a management kind of agency which we anticipate here. Another problem is that they have sewer lines which run on NRA property and the Park Service has taken a position that they cannot have vehicular traf- fic. If they have to do any maintenance they have to go in by foot or snowmobile in order to do the work. So far they haven't had any major leaks, but they are concerned that if they had a major problem, they would not be able to go in to repair it. "This raises a fundamental point that the Council needs to consider," Mr. Caulfield began, "and that is you may want, physically speaking, a lot of things that are in the report, but whether you want federal control is a major issue." Ray Herrmann contends that we should look at the other side of that by recognizing that the Cuyahoga River is being upgraded to a class one des- ignation; "That's the same river that caught fire not too many years ago!" he stressed. Henry Caulfield was with the Department of the Interior for many years and was involved in the Wild and Scenic Act and designation of National Recre- ation Areas during the 1960s. "In my judgement, if you looked at this por- tion of the Poudre just for recreation and wildlife, it isn't of national importance. As a staff person there, I would turn it down in terms of the criteria we used in the 1960s," he asserted. "On the other hand, if you look at the Cuyahoga, what was it that attracted the federal government to that river?" It wasn't because it was a national recreation area, but because it was a navigation project and navigation projects historically are Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 4 very important in the eastern part of the country. Many of these are set up as park service areas as an historical attraction, he added. The thing that could attract the federal government here, if we want it, is if, as a national element, this portion of the river could be made, into a big historic project in terms of the history of irrigation from the 19th century to now. It could be a project that makes sense in the west, he emphasized. If navigation in the east is a great thing, irrigation in the west is equally significant. However, this could lead to some things we may not like in terms of its administration and water policies, he cautioned. The State of Colorado, as yet does not have state Wild & Scenic legislation as many states do, which could allow this portion of the Poudre to come under designation as a state and local project. "I understand there are some bills around, but nothing has happened." he added. "It seems to me the question of the federal role is very germane," he concluded. Although he is very sympathetic to these kinds of things, he acknowledged that they can get out of control. "Things have changed a lot recently," Ray Herrmann began. "It probably is not necessary to have a strong national interest to hang it on in terms of the NRAs." We have one very important thing in common with the Cuyahoga. They have John Siberling and we have Hank Brown which means if the legisla- tion goes through it will probably be submitted year end as part of the omnibus bill and it will go in as Hank Brown submits it and will go through unopposed. Mr. Caulfield asserted that "the Cuyahoga also has the canal area." MaryLou Smith was interested in how this would interface with what the Poud- re River Trust has in mind. Tom Moore said the Trust had a meeting last night. Kari VanMeter said she had attended, and they adopted a resolution endorsing pursuit of designation. One of the whereas statements, and there are four, was that the goal and mission of the NRA is also comprised in the mission of the Poudre Trust. The NRA is a bit broader because the scope of interest of the trust is simply that stretch of the River between College and Mulberry, but the overlay of common interest is there. "Does Hank Brown endorse the plan or just the philosophy?" Tom Sanders asked. "I haven't heard much from the Congressman about the draft report yet," Ms. VanMeter replied. Congressman Brown was the one who put through the legislation to get the study authorized, Mr. Caulfield explained. He is clearly committed to it. Mr. Moore added that he approached it from a flood plain standpoint. "Yes the wise and efficient use of the flood plain was one of the things on his mind as well as preserving open space and providing recreation in the face of increasing population demands," Ms. VanMeter verified. "I think preserving the flood plain against further development should be emphasized even more," Dr. Sanders suggested. "That in itself is not a mark for federal designation," Mr. Caulfield pointed out. Water Board Minutes, • June 16, 1989 Page 5 Tim Dow said he was curious as to where the water was going to come from. Linda Burger pointed out that the plan doesn't actually call for any addi- tional water. Doesn't it call for maintaining some kind of stream flow? "No, the plan suggests that the river qualifies as it is for NRA designa- tion," Ms. Burger replied. "It does outline possibilities that could be pursued for enhancing flows which would improve the recreation and esthetic values to the River corridor, but it doesn't suggest you have to enhance flows in order to have the recreation area designation," she explained. Ms. Burger went on to say that the one concern she has along with other staff people, is that the plan does not contemplate seeking federal funds to purchase water, "and that's one of the things I would like to discuss with Ms. VanMeter a little more. If we are going to go along with the designa- tion and there's going to be federal money available, why not have it available for water acquisition as well as land acquisition?" Mr. Caulfield said another angle is that although the Water Board hasn't taken a position on Grey Mountain or other dams, they have taken the posi- tion that we should stay flexible, and keep all of the options open. If there were a Grey Mountain it is entirely possible that you could build into that a provision for some kind of flow. "The point I'm making now is the thing I don't want to see happen, is somehow in the legislation for this, the flexibility is taken away; in other words, the opportunities are removed for good management," he stressed, "which could include some kind of flow for the River as it goes through Fort Collins." Linda Burger said that she, Kari VanMeter and Dennis Bode can work together to see what kind of language they can come up with to address some of the concerns that have been raised, and then the Board can reconsider the revised version "if that would suit your needs." Mr. Caulfield said that one motion the Board could consider is that the Board has reviewed the matter and they have read the staff memo, and have concluded that they endorse the effort of the staff to work with Kari VanMeter to take into consideration the concerns addressed in the memoran- dum. Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board agrees with the concept and concurs with the concerns that staff addressed in the memo and would direct staff and Kari VanMeter to work towards resolution of these concerns. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. Dr. Sanders added as the NRA Committee Chairman that he thinks this is so important that it should be reviewed as a full board at the July meeting and not just as a sub -committee report. The motion passed unanimously. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 6 Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Mary Lou Smith asked if we aren't doing better this year than last year in terms of being right at or below average year projected. "Weren't we run- ning above average last year?" Andy Pineda replied that it was 10% over in May this year. We were 14% over last year. Henry Caulfield asked if Anheuser-Busch was only on for 10 months in 1988. "Yes," Mr. Pineda replied. "Therefore, with the 12 months on line, just that fact alone would put you substantially over 30,000 AF this year, quite a part form any weather considerations," Mr. Caulfield stated. "They haven't been up to the 4200 AF of total use for the year," Mr. Pineda responded. "They have been using about 300 AF a month." "In our gpcd figure we came up with in the Water Supply Policy," MaryLou Smith began, "what was that 230 gpd based on?" Those were based on some historic trends, Mr. Pineda replied. How did we arrive at the figure for population projections? That was taken from planning information Mr. Pineda said. "I'd like to see how a 10% error in that would make that figure change," Ms. Smith asserted. "As I recall that's at 3%," Mr. Caulfield said, and it tapered off at the end. This includes just the area that the City is serving. No question about projections; population figures are very difficult," he agreed. Mr. Caulfield explained that Dennis Bode made the point at the last meeting that "we are holding back approximately 35,000 AF of our supply for this year and leasing only anything above 35,000. "Hopefully, we are fully pro- tected; that may or may not occur this year. "What was the peak day so far this year?" "It was 55.2 on May 29," Mr. Pineda replied. That was memorial Day, a very hot day! Committee Reports Legislative/Finance A single page memo prepared by staff, was distributed to the members regar- ding the Interim Legislative Water Committee and a brief mention of the interim committee on accountability of governmental authority which will look at the Water Resource and Power Development Authority along with oth- ers. Linda Burger drew the attention of the Board to item C on the memo which relates to the Board's discussion of the NRA. The feasibility of the Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation establishing a trails and water system within the State's water right laws, will be studied by the Interim Water Committee. The memo also provides a schedule of the meetings and a list of members. Dave Stewart asked if the Department of Natural Resources is going to try to get water quality back under their jurisdiction. Ms. Burger said she didn't think so. SB 181 was signed by the Governor on June 9 and it appears that Sen. Norton has accomplished what he set out to do with the bill. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 7 Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith called the Board's attention to the committee report on demand policy distributed at the meeting. The Committee has met several times and has been discussing what conservation, in a broad sense, means and what we are doing as a water utility in terms of conservation, and what we want to be doing. Also the Committee has looked at public education as separate from conservation. "We need, as a part of our responsibility, to educate the public about water in general. There is a need to make sure our commu- nity is educated about water treatment, wastewater treatment, water rights; the whole arena of water." Ms. Smith said that the Committee has a concept that is stated in the memo which is a way to address the issue of conservation more fully from their perspective with more attention to whether or not they want to change anything. "We have looked at the current conservation program of the City, especially with regard to public education, and in that area we feel that we are doing pretty much what needs to be done," she said. Regarding conserva- tion, the committee thinks that we need to be looking more at the issue of demand management. "We determined that by putting metering off, that we don't want to get into demand management through meters at this point. Just because we have decided that, what do we want to do about demand management and do we want to do anything? The Committee thinks that whatever we do about demand management, we should be cataloging that position into a policy similar to what has been done with water supply. There are many references to demand in the supply document. There are many references to demand in nearly every Water Board meeting. There are numerous ideas about demand, but there is no demand policy. When we talk about metering, for example, we don't have anything that says what it would take to reconsider metering. Therefore, the Conservation and Public Education Committee would like to propose that staff pull together all the information we already have about demand as it relates to Fort Collins and prepare a report that the Board could refer to and see where some gaps are. For example, what further infor- mation do we need? Based on that, what kind of policy do we want to write about demand? "Neil Grigg was willing to take our ideas as a Committee and put them into the memo," Ms. Smith said, "and he has stated that the goals of the report would be:" (1) to provide an analysis of demand by sector to show where demand management could be used, if it were to become necessary, and the feasibilities of demand management; (2) to serve as an educational vehicle to explain that the Water Board has considered water use patterns and evalu- ated needed policies; (3) to provide guidance on the City's responsibili- ties to share water supplies in the region, through leasing water, etc...; (4) to provide an evaluation of the feasibilities of various demand manage- ment options; and (5) to set forth a drought response plan for the City of Fort Collins. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 8 Next Dr. Grigg outlined how the report would be organized: 1) Present projected demand 2) Demand Management Strategies 3) City's responsibilities to conserve water 4) Recommendations and need for further study Marylou Smith said that some of what is in this outline would be what staff would compile in terms of what we are already doing. Some would be sugges- tions on what we need to consider. "We are not asking staff to tell us what the Water Board should feel about some of these ideas," she stressed, "but to point out that this is an area we need to work on." This is a report that would be interactive. "Staff would give us some facts and figures about what we already know and what we have already decided and put it all in one place. The Board would massage it, work with it, fill in some blanks, and eventually, I think, come up with a demand pol- icy." It might not be a demand management policy because we may decide we don't want to manage demand, she added. "What we would like," she continued, "is for Water Board to endorse our pro- posal so staff could begin to work on the report." Henry Caulfield referred the Board to the minutes of a joint meeting with the South Districts (specifically Fort Collins -Loveland) and the City of Fort Collins, Section C, p. 2, No. 5: C. The following specific areas were identified as items that should be looked at for possible inclusion in the extension of the inter -governmental agreement: 5. Future water conserva- tion/metering efforts or plans of the City. Mr. Caulfield said that at the meeting some pressure was put on the City by Fort Collins -Loveland, regard- ing metering. "Of course they meter their water," he stated. Council mem- bers Horak and Maxey were there, and also heard the comments. It was brought up in the context of uniformity of policies, he clarified. "From the Water Board's perspective, Marylou Smith stated, "if groups like the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District want to know why we don't have meters, the report we are referring to would explain why we don't, and under what circumstance we would." We need to point out to others that we have indeed thought these things through, she stressed. Linda Burger asked to respond to the proposal on behalf of staff. She said that most of that information is taken care of by Ms. Burger's Division -- Support Services. "We'have just recently produced a cost of service study, which is in draft form but is basically complete. It has all the informa- tion which you have outlined in you appendix section of your proposal. Would it be possible for the Committee to review the information that we have available? I think it can be used to address the questions you have listed here without making it necessary for staff to produce a new report in a slightly different form," she stated. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 9 Ms. Smith stressed that the Committee wasn't looking for staff to prepare a completely new report. "We just wanted staff to take the responsibility of pulling together what you already have." "It is together in a report, "Ms. Burger replied, "but it doesn't lay out strategies for managing demand other than rate structure." There may be some other questions that the Commit- tee may want to address but I think it would be preferable to look at the cost of service report and then see what else you need," she suggested. Neil Grigg responded: "We would know in advance that we need some other things too." MaryLou Smith made an excellent summary of our discussion, he began. However, there is even more to explain than we've talked about here. It goes beyond how much water is demanded. We had a very confusing set of meetings in the Conservation Committee. Our task was to determine how well the City is doing in its conservation pro- gram, he explained. "After 3 or 4 meetings, we weren't sure we had a conser- vation program." Conservation is a confusing concept. It means different things to different people, and the definition changes over time. "It's hard to explain to people who just move to Colorado why everyone waters their lawns. They believe it's not justified because they think we live in a desert, and they don't understand. That's part of explaining what water conservation is. What we came around to on the Committee, and we don't all agree on every concept, he admitted, is that water conservation is an aspect of water demand and water demand has to do with how customers use their water." What the Committee was concerned with was everything that relates to how we deal with our customers and meet their needs and how we may influ- ence our customers' needs through demand management. What the Utility did in the supply study was to describe how we were going to get enough water to meet demands. We arrived at a number which was 230 gpcd which seems like a high number to some people. If they are using 175, they think we're water "hogs." The idea behind preparing a memo was so we could begin to get a better handle on what our total approach to meeting customers' need is by dealing with demand. What is it going to be in the future? How might we influence it? How could we meet it better, and even who are our customers? Are they also those people outside of the City to whom we might lease ,water? Dr. Grigg used an analogy of the electricity industry. It used to be all of the planning was geared to how we generate more electricity in case somebody wants it. Now, the thinking is, because of many changes, what are our total responsibilities to manage energy demand? "I don't think the water industry is at the same place," he said. What the Committee has in mind here is future thinking about the demand side of a water utility. "We aren't thinking that staff should do a lot of work. We would just like to pull out the decisions and statements that have been made, so we don't always have to go back to square 1 to explain to someone why it is 230 gpcd." Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 10 Dave Stewart believes that the cost of service report would answer those questions. "However, only the Water Board can come up with the strategies," he contends. The first step is to get a copy of the cost of service report. All we are asking, Marylou Smith repeated, is that staff go back to the sup- ply report and pull out all references to demand management. Also what the drought study and the rate study have to say about demand, and emerge with a tentative report about what our policy is. Henry Caulfield suggested that before the Committee's next meeting, staff ought to have a check list of what the Committee wants the staff to bring to the meeting. "We've had a number of discussions about how you manage demand without meters," Neil Grigg said. "These must be recorded somewhere." Ms. Smith stated that what the Committee really would like are a couple of paragraphs that say, in the metering debates, the arguments against meter- ing at this time pointed out that Council and Water Board are interested in taking this other approach to demand management. "As volunteer members of the Board, we don't have time to sit down and compile all of those details," she added. "It should be noted, Dr. Grigg said, "that the Committee's intention was not to re -introduce the metering issue in a back -handed way." Tom Moore pointed out the need to have an emergency drought plan prepared. Neil Grigg stated that there has been obvious confusion within the Commit- tee. "If we are going to have a conservation sub -committee, let's straighten out what it's going to do. Don't send us off in a corner to talk about a nebulous concept called conservation and expect us to do anything," he insisted. Ms. Smith added "and it's not just to justify our existence, but we do need a policy in the City about how we feel about demand." Mr. Caulfield attempted to define conservation. "Historically, he began, "the word conservation, in the 19th century and well into this century, meant augmentation of supply. It meant building reservoirs in order to col- lect water in the spring to make it available in the summer and fall. That's been the western definition. The only time it was challenged in gov- ernment was the 1970s during the Carter Administration. It rose out of the philosophy of economists and the basic idea of demand management that was generated then as a definition of conservation. That, of course, meant pricing of water as the key concept. Of course you do have the idea -of restrictions as it came up in the context also; showerheads, faucets, toi- lets, etc. reducing the amount of water. When you talk about conservation today, you either have to accept the definition of it as demand management or you must reject it, he believes. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 11 "There is even a more complex aspect of it as it relates to Colorado," Dr. Grigg said, "and that is in the legislature every year someone introduces a bill to improve water use efficiency in Colorado, and that's really compli- cated; particularly as it relates to irrigation. Those bills don't go any- where. When you talk about water conservation in the City, people are also talking about water use efficiency, but people don't agree on efficient use." Mr. Caulfield explained that the overall ideological phrase that appeared earlier in conservation literature was wise use. "That's what we tried to re -introduce," Dr. Grigg asserted. "We are trying to say that Fort Collins uses its water wisely." "How can you make that statement?" Linda Burger asked. MaryLou Smith contends that metering is not the only way to use water wisely. Ray Herrmann commented that you need to know how much you are using for some kind of measurement. Tim Dow inquired: How difficult would it be for staff to put together the minutes during the time when metering was an issue for those of us who weren't present? Ms. Burger replied that it could take a lot of hours. "We spent years talking about the issue," she recalled. Ray Herrmann suggested that in order to make it easier for staff, that we change a couple of words in the memo. For example, where it asks for a report, "let's just ask for information. In the last line where we ask for a potential outline for a report, simply say for a future report. The Committee has a lot of hours in on discussion of this issue, Dr. Grigg insisted, and unless we focus our thinking somehow, we are going to have many more hours! Mr. Caulfield proposed that at the next meeting of the Committee, that staff, including Dennis Bode and Linda Burger, will bring the materials in question that are available in various reports, including the rate study. He also asked the secretary to provide copies of the statements that were made with regard to the metering issue. What you are proposing is that a lot more information be sent back to the Committee for us to examine which would require a lot more work, Dr. Grigg stated. This is an analysis that needs to be done by someone for the future, he added. Mr. Caulfield withdrew his suggestion. Ms. Smith reiterated that what is needed is someone on staff to pull together all the information. It could include 3 or 4 pages. "We are not talking about a lengthy report," she repeated. We mentioned in our group that possibly the new water conservation person who is coming on board could do this analysis. The Water Utility is in the process of hiring that person, she said. Dr. Grigg asked if that person's job description would be in line with this kind of an assignment. Molly Nortier said she didn't think so and gave a brief description of what this employee's responsibilities would be. Water Board Minutes June 16, 1989 Page 12 Chairman Caulfield suggested the Committee work with Ms. Burger and Mr. Bode on this. Ms. Burger said that she and Dennis Bode would meet next week and discuss what staff can handle with regard to the work load and then get back with the Committee. Tom Sanders proposed that the Water Board consider looking at a drought implementation plan as a first priority along with demand management. Ms. Smith concluded that she would like a response from staff within a month giving the Committee some direction. Other Business Chairman Caulfield referred the Board to the minutes of the joint meeting with the South Districts and the City of Fort Collins. He stated his impres- sion of the main thrust of the meeting. Mike DiTullio and the District are in agreement with the idea that their policies ought to be uniform with the City's, Mr. Caulfield began. For example, they are not seeking a different water quality from the City's. The main discussion related to that issue. They want to proceed with the drought question. Section C, 1-6 is consistent with that general idea. They brought up the metering question, as Mr. Caulfield already indicated earlier, as a lack of uniformity between the way they operate and the way we operate. This has policy implications. Mr. Caulfield informed the Board that the main piece of news, "that none of us had heard of prior to the meeting, was the fact that the Districts; Fort Collins -Loveland, ELCO and North Weld have already decided to build jointly, a 10 MGD plant as an addition to the existing plant at Soldier Canyon." Their potential plans were discussed extensively. One of the points of the discussion was whether they would be interested in abandoning that and go along with us, etc. This of course is linked to their near term need for water purchased from us., as well as the 60" pipeline question. "They didn't say yes we'll go in with you but they didn't say adamantly no, we've already decided what we want to do. They took it under advisement," he said. On the other hand, it seems to Mr. Caulfield, his reading of the discussion would be more that they are reluctant to abandon their agreement that they have with ELCO and North Weld. The 10 MGD plant is largely for their bene- fit and it would be one that would meet the City's water quality standards in principle. This would enable ELCO and North Weld to use the existing capacity. Do they have the water, Ray Herrmann asked. They are getting the water, Mr. Caulfield replied. We discussed water supply but we didn't get into any numbers, he said. They bought North Poudre water and expect to receive that as Horsetooth water. They also discussed water rights downstream in the Boxelder water District which may be available for sale. Some of their members are apparently in that area. There is the question of whether we would transport that over from the River. That would change the point of diversion and change of use • Water Board Minutes• June 16, 1989 Page 13 to their plant for them. Mr tive spirit at the meeting. cussions are at this time. • Caulfield emphasized that there was a coopera- These minutes, he said, indicate where the dis- Mr. Caulfield said that fort Collins mentioned that we were thinking of another plant down the road. He said the City asked whether or not the Dis- trict would consider buying some or all of its treated water from the City by potentially sharing in the next plant addition being proposed by the City. Mr. Caulfield explained that although the meeting was very friendly, "It's clear that they don't want to get in a position of depending on us. They want to maintain some autonomy. The thing that was most important is that they are not at all fighting the idea of uniformity of policies. Ray Herrmann asked if they are talking about lowering our water quality standards or are they now saying they are willing to come up to ours? Mr. Caulfield asked Dave Stewart to answer that. "They are saying conventional treatment." Mr. Stewart replied. Mike DiTullio explained, Mr. Caulfield began, "that there are 3 different ways of doing this: just using Horsetooth water and somehow filtering it; then there was another stage; then conven- tional water quality treatment. He was equating the words conventional water quality treatment with the way we do it." They were saying words that indicated that they were on our level of treatment. It was understood, of course that that would be translated into writing. Tim Dow asked about the Council's perception of this. Two Council members, Gerry Horak and Loren Maxey were there, Mr. Caulfield replied. This is mov- ing toward the style and form which is consistent with the agreement Gerry Horak forged on behalf of the City with the District 5 years ago, and he is all for it. Council member Maxey appeared not to be opposing it, and nei- ther is the staff opposing it. The memorandum that Mr. Caulfield provided for Board members last time was a policy perspective of what we are trying to derive from this agreement, so we do get uniformity and hopefully our conception of what ought to be uni- form. "Incidentally, "he said, "nobody has objected to my memorandum. fort Collins -Loveland hasn't seen it as far as I know," he added. Loren Maxey is the current liaison with the Water Board. Gerry Horak was the former liaison, "so as far as I can see, we are coordinated with the Coun- cil. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Water Board Secretary