Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/20/19890 9 Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Tim Dow, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Chester Watson (alt.), Mark Casey (alt.) Guests Darell Zimbelman, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Kari VanMeter, City Planner and Project Manager, National Recreation Area Study Steve Walker, Consultant, NRA Study Dan MacArthur, Triangle Review Steve Puttmann, Howard Spear, Scott Hoover, Ken Kehmeier from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Joe Maurier, Craig Bergman, Randy Rivers from the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Andy Pineda, Webb Jones, Wendy Williams, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Members Absent None Reception Honoring Henry Caulfield In November of 1988, Henry Caulfield was presented with the medal for Exem- plary Contributions to National Water Policy at the awards luncheon of the Annual Conference of the American Water Resources Association. The award, established in Mr. Caulfield's honor, was given for the first time in 1988. Ray Herrmann, former president of the AWRA, made a few remarks about Mr. Caulfield and the significance of the award at the Water Board reception. The award honors an individual who has achieved status of eminence in shaping national water policy and whose record of achievements in setting, designing and/or implementing water resources policies at the national level is extraordinary. It should be noted that Ray Herrmann was presented with a plaque at the same luncheon for his outstanding term as president of the AWRA. President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were dis- cussed: Minutes The minutes of December 16, 1988, were approved as distributed. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Page 2 Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Darell Zimbelman announced that the District has let a contract to Colorado Lien to haul rock from their quarry for Horsetooth improvements. This will improve the chances of getting the project back on line, he said. The pen- stock going from Flatiron up to Carter has seen some deterioration and crack- ing. A contractor from Loveland is constructing a new steel line in that critical stretch at the south end. The Sub -district has sued Morrison-Knudsen Engineering over the voltage dip that has been experienced at the Windy Gap pump plant. It ranges from a 6-7% voltage dip when the first motor is started. Tri-state originally said that was too much and that the District needed to do some repairs or they were not going to allow them to operate the pumping plant as it was designed. That case was set to go to trial on Tuesday. However, last week Tri-state, who had originally agreed that the District could install a reactive starting that would reduce the voltage close to 6% under most circumstances, decided against that. They implied that they might require repairs that would cost $1.3 million where the reactive start would have cost about $600,000. On Tuesday, the District enjoined Tri-state into the law suit which means the trial is now delayed indefinitely. There is a settlement conference sche- duled within the next few days, and Mr. Zimbelman is optimistic that it will be settled before it goes to trial. There has been another session concerning the Carriage Contract negotiations, Mr. Zimbelman continued. There is still some question from the Bureau's point of view whether the District can prove to them that integrated oper- ations were contemplated all along. The District has provided them with a position paper which the Bureau is considering. The Bureau and the District should be meeting again within 2 or 3 weeks. Henry Caulfield inquired about a non -degradation issue, referred to in the NCWCD minutes, which the District seems concerned about. "What are the sub- stantive aspects of this," he asked. "We are all aware of the basic policy issue about non -degradation and enhancement," he said. According to the min- utes, it apparently applies not just to the District's reservoirs, but all reservoirs inside the District boundaries. Mr. Zimbelman responded that it relates to more than reservoirs. In November there was an issue that dealt specifically with reservoirs. The state Water Quality Control Commission had proposed designating the plains reservoirs as Class II high quality which operationally would have been a real problem. Frequently the water that fills those reservoirs is irrigation run-off and return flows and there is no practical way to control or monitor the water quality that goes into them. "What are they classified now," Mr. Caulfield asked. Linda Burger, former Water Quality Control Commission member, replied that most of them are classified Class II warm water aquatic life. She added that the ones proposed for re-classification generally had a Class I recre- ation attached also. "I don't think they selected any reservoirs that had not been previously classified," she explained. Water Board Mir s January 20, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Zimbelman said that the District's legal counsel felt that the classifi- cation would be very difficult to deal with for the owners of the reservoirs. "As I understand it," he continued, "the non -degradation policy as EPA would interpret it, says there are some very pristine waters flowing into those, reservoirs in Colorado and you can't change that quality. Effectively, that would mean we can't use the water at all" he asserted. Mr. Caulfield commented that when he was involved with the area -wide water quality study, it seemed to him that canals etc., at least in the early stages, were left out. This issue didn't arise because irrigation water was not a consideration then. The water coming from the mountains was taken to be pristine, and certainly not to be degraded. If there is a strict interpretation of the anti -degradation policy, Mr. Zim- belman reiterated, "it says you can't degrade the water at all, period." The position that the State has taken in the past is that there is some level that the quality must be maintained. "If it is above that, it can be degraded down to some level. If you go with the strict interpretation, you can't do anything with the water," he insisted. Linda Burger explained that she thinks one of the reasons that this new anti - degradation rule adopted by Colorado is controversial is that for the first time it is applying an anti -degradation review process for 401 certification and 404 permits. In the past, this issue has been more or less limited to NPDES permits, but the new rule also applies to 401 and 404 decisions. Because it is going to apply to dredge and fill as opposed to discharge per- mits for the first time, it has many people very uncomfortable about the ability to do maintenance or repair work on reservoirs, diversion struc- tures, etc. Chester Watson asked for a clarification on the anti -degradation law regard- ing class limits. Ms. Burger responded that the new anti -degradation stan- dards specify that those waters which are classified as high quality, can not be degraded below existing quality unless, after a hearing, it is determined that there are important economic and social justifications, and there are no better alternatives. If after public hearings you can show those two things, Class II water quality can be degraded down to the level that is necessary to protect the usage. "Even though it still might be a Class II after it's been degraded?" They could keep the Class II classification, she answered. "So there is also the question of the best technology involved," Mr. Caulfield added. Mr. Zimbelman believes that the other issue that is going to get hot in the next few months is non -point source pollution control. President Caulfield asked Tim Dow, chairman of the Legislative and Finance Committee, to pursue the issue of anti -degradation with his committee. This will be a legal case or a legislative case one way or another, Mr. Caulfield contends. Mr. Zimbelman said he would see that the District's attorneys send information to the utility on this issue. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Page 4 Ms. Burger announced that the Water Quality Control Division had proposed hearings on the entire upper Poudre and Horsetooth Reservoir as well as a number of plains reservoirs, to consider reclassification from their existing various classifications, to the high quality Class II, which would make them subject to the new anti -degradation review process. However, as a result of a motion made by Greg Hobbs on behalf of the Northern District, the Commission agreed to drop consideration, at this time, of all of those bodies of water except for those that are either in wilderness areas or have a wild river designation; the point being that there is no data. All of those proposals for reclassification have been dropped until the next tri-annual review, except for wild rivers and the wilderness area. "We, on behalf of the City, have agreed that those are properly high quality, Class II," Ms. Burger con- cluded. A hearing is still scheduled for February to consider other matters. Neil Grigg asked how the anti -degradation would be of concern to us. Henry Caulfield explained that we are involved with Halligan and Reservoirs 5 and 6, for example. Dr. Grigg stated that it would be our improvements and maintenance on Halligan that would be of concern and that we should see how the new rule affects our operations. Mr. Caulfield stressed that he brought this up because it is something we should be concerned about and look into. Mr. Caulfield also approached the issue of the sale of Windy Gap water that was discussed in the Northern District minutes and the Water Market Update. Is there anything more to say on that issue? There is a bill currently in the legislature, Mr. Zimbelman responded, that would specifically allow con- servancy district and conservation districts to lease water over a long period. "There is one immediate need for that and one potential need; the immediate need relates to the 1985 agreements among the Sub -district, the District, the River District and Denver. Denver agreed to lease back some water from the River District as part of either the Rock Creek or Muddy Creek project. At this time, the River District is building the Muddy Creek project, part of which is financed by the $10.2 million that the Sub -district provided. To maintain that agreement, or implement it, the River District has no statutory authority to lease that water back to Denver. The current bill would allow that. What about Longmont and Boulder selling or leasing water to Denver? Mr. Zim- belman replied that the way the bill is written, only conservancy districts or conservation districts can make those lease arrangements. If this bill was enacted, only the district could lease that water outside their boundaries, i.e. to Denver. Mr. Caulfield asked: "Don't Boulder, Longmont and Greeley want to sell their Windy Gap water?" Boulder wants to sell theirs because they have decided that they don't intend to grow much more, so they don't need the Windy Gap water, whereas Longmont and Greeley would like to sell their expensive Windy Gap water and replace it with less expensive CST water. Mr. Zimbelman predicts that if they were able to do that, the price of CST would escalate dramatically for everyone. "CST would become more expensive than the water they sold," he contends. Mr. Caulfield asked when Mr. Zimbel- man anticipates that this will come to the point where the Water Board could express its views on the subject. Water Board Mires is January 20, 1989 Page 5 I Formally it won't come to the District Board, he replied, "until the Sub- district comes to the Board with a proposed contract to sell Windy Gap water to a potential allottee who is outside of Boulder or Weld Counties." That is when the District Board will be forced to address the issue. Philosophi- cally, it is clear what the Board's position has been and still is: "They are willing to include anybody into the Sub -district as long as they are in one of the counties in the parent district. I don't think they are going to change that stance until a formal request is made, and that would be the time when your Board could discuss the issue, but," he added, "you can express your preference to the Board at any time." Mr. Zimbelman said he came today wearing two hats; one as an employee of the Northern District and as president of the Loveland Water Board. Speaking as president of the water board, he related that the Loveland and Greeley Boards continue to express an interest in jointly meeting with Fort Collins, on an informal basis, as the three boards have in the past few years. Neil Grigg pointed out that the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce has estab- lished a water committee with Dave Stewart as its chairman. The committee has met twice and Dr. Grigg and Mike Smith attended a recent meeting. At that meeting, the main issue that emerged was the need for some kind of regional study that would show the impact on the economy of water transfers out of this region. "It's just possible that the chamber might reach out to the chambers of Loveland and Greeley," he said. "It makes sense that the Water Boards also are talking about possible strategies, policies and cooperative ventures," Dr. Grigg concluded. Henry Caulfield referred to a segment from the "Water Market Update" where they discussed the question of the consequences if Two Forks was not built. "The pressure to knock down the policy regarding the District boundaries would be very great indeed. If $4,000 is a good price for water in Denver," he continued, "you know what would happen up here." That raises the question if agriculture is viable if water can be sold at $4,000 per acre foot. Mr. Zimbelman said if that happens agriculture will move east of Greeley and will take advantage of the return flows from municipal use. Mr. Caulfield stressed that whether or not Two Forks is built, is a very important topic for Northern Colorado. Dr. Grigg said that Ward Fischer, who is also a mem- ber of the chamber committee, suggested the possible need for a water bank in Northern Colorado. "One water bank might be the District," Dr. Grigg sug- gested, "but that needs to be looked at, so we could sustain agriculture in the face of all that pressure. There are a lot of unanswered questions about how to do that," he stressed. President Caulfield asked Mike Smith to explore the possibility of a meeting with the Loveland and Greeley Water Boards. Presentation and Discussion on National Recreation Area Designation for Lower Poudre River Kari VanMeter, who works for the City Planning Dept. and is the Project Man- ager of the Poudre NRA study and Steve Walker, consultant to the study, appeared before the Water Board on an information sharing basis. Ms. VanMeter explained how important it is for the Water Board to be aware of the study Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Page 6 and know its purpose and mission, because federal recreation designation may have consequences that pertain to water quantity and quality, as well as man- agement of various river resources, including use of the water and the land. The draft report will be released in April, so she and Mr. Walker are meeting with various groups that are affected so they will have a chance to hear about it before then. National Recreation Areas are federal recreation designations that are created by an act of congress. Basically they are areas of scenic beauty with an emphasis on outdoor recreation. The concepts are very flexible. "No two NRAs are alike," Ms. VanMeter stressed. They are responsive to the opportunities and constraints of the local setting. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on making them more accessible to urban users and there is renewed emphasis on the cultural, social, educational and historic values associated with those areas. The City began the study as a result of a mandate contained in Public Law 99-590 which designated the upper reaches of the Cache La Poudre River as Wild and Scenic. The law stated that the City, in partnership with the For- est Service, should pursue a feasibility study to determine if we could get an NRA designation for a lower reach of the Poudre River. A grant was pro- vided by the government to conduct a study. The portion of the river that is being studied is an 18.5 mile corridor about a mile in width, from the western border of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area to the Larimer/Weld County line. Ms. VanMeter emphasized that this is not necessarily what an NRA would look like if there was to be one. According to the mandate, Ms. VanMeter explained, the City needs to report back to the Secretary of Agriculture by October of 1989, "so we are on a fairly limited time frame." About half of the study has been completed. The mission of the study is to investigate the feasibility or the potential for a federal recreation designation along this stretch of the River. The study will accomplish this by proposing alternative recreation scenarios that are based on an analysis of opportunities and constraints, taking into account community values about the River corridor. The study will predict consequences pertaining to any one recreation scenario, and will evaluate those scenarios against established federal criteria for NRAs. The technical feasibility analysis, the hard work of the study, will tell us whether an NRA can be done. It will be the public process that tells us whether an NRA should be done, Ms. Van Meter concluded. Mr. Walker reiterated that the basis for designation of an NRA in a particu- lar area usually involves a unique set of circumstances. He indicated on a map the water resource system within the local study area. His job as the technical consultant is to determine if NRA designation can be accomplished based on technical merit in terms of recreation opportunities and natural resource management and protection. Ultimately the decision is a political one; whether the City and County wish to pursue it or if the landowners wish to pursue it. The consultant's task is to develop a series of scenarios that will allow people to see the kinds of recreation that can occur along the river corridor. Obviously, the river is the focus of the NRA, so water Ae Water Board Mims January 20, 1989 f Page 7 {.' recreation is considered along with flood plain management, natural resource management, wildlife, vegetation and all the other :elements of a river corri- dor. Gravel operations are also a key. In terms of water recreation, they look at three elements: esthetics, the ability to fish and the ability to boat. In line with that, they obviously look at the issue of flow enhancement. Mr. Walker was asked how designation would be affected if a water storage project was built on the upper stretches of the river. He recognizes that if a Poudre project were constructed, they would need to consider flow enhance- ment changes and operations that would affect the flow in the river within the City. He mentioned that a misconception about NRAs is that they are all federally owned land which is not true, and that there is a heavy element of federal management. That is also not necessary, he said. His company is looking at a series of cooperative management structures that involve federal and local agencies. It is important to note that regardless of the outcome of the study, whether or not the City and County decide to proceed with the designation, the stu- dy is of great merit. "It's going to help focus attention on the River and focus attention to issues of water quality and quantity, he stressed. It can help establish a framework for future recreation planning along the River. In terms of flow enhancement, obviously this will require a great deal of cooperation among many agencies in order to achieve it. Neil Grigg asked for an example of an area that has been designated as an NRA. Two of the more applicable ones would be the Chattahoochee River into Atlanta and a segment of the Cayahoga between Akron and Cleveland, Mr. Walker replied. He mentioned those because they are more urbanized river corridors. How is the Chattahoochee being used? It is a very large river that is heavily used for boating activities, he said. The Corps of Engineers had proposed a dam upstream. Local entities, at a grass roots level, decided that they had a natural resource that was worth pursuing. As a result, designa- tion occurred in 1972. There are 33 NRAs in the U.S. Mr. Walker explained that the Park Service was responsible for many of them in the late 60s and the 70s. The Forest Service became responsible for some of the more recent ones. Ray Herrmann said that the Black Canyon of the Gunnison is one and Mr. Walker added that the Arapaho NRA is at Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoirs. Those are the two in Colo- rado. Henry Caulfield explained that the NRA is an outgrowth of the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968. An issue that always emerges is the consideration of a dam upstream. The original act states that nothing shall be done upstream from one of these areas that will in any way adversely affect the area in question. Mr. Caulfield asked if those things are taken into consideration in the study. Mr. Walker replied that they must keep in mind what the regional context is. Certainly current recreation up the canyon as well as Water. Board Minutes January 20, 198.9 Page 8 downstream must be considered. "We are not trying to design a competing resource," he assured the Board. Mr. Caulfield asked from where Thornton is planning to take its water. It is issues like that which must be considered, he asserted. Are you in on all those issues? "Yes," Mr. Walker replied, "we have a hydrologist who is in charge of that." He pointed out that in the development of the alternatives, they do not feel it is necessary for it to be a high quality fishery or that it be high quality boating, in order for the concept of the NRA to work. However, they would like to see a certain level of enhancement of the flow. When the water is flowing, it has a great effect in terms of people's passive recreational experience. Mr. Walker assured the Board that they certainly don't see an enhancement that would create a boating opportunity that doesn't exist now. "When I heard we were considering this," Tom Sanders commented, "I couldn't believe it because there are times in the summer when there is 0 flow in that portion of the River." Dr. Sanders is concerned about the NRA primarily because it could restrict the City in its plans for the future. Currently we aren't putting much treated effluent into the river, but if we wanted to in the future, this designation may prevent that. "Is the plan to make it a warm water trash fishery?" "In terms of fishery," Mr. Walker replied, "the Division of Wildlife is looking at it on the basis of their salvage stocking; for example, moving it into the gravel ponds in certain areas. What we are saying is there is a fishing opportunity -- not for quality brown trout obviously." What Tom Sanders wants to know is how this is going to affect the City in future water resource decisions. Mr. Walker said that it was key in their efforts that they don't focus an opportunity on an alternative that could be lost. "That's why I'm down -playing the significance of in -stream recre- ation." Mr. Caulfield wanted to know if their study takes into account alternative management schemes. Kari VanMeter said "one of the major functions of the study is to also propose management scenarios." Mr. Walker added that the signals they are getting is that cooperative management would be the most viable approach. "Legally someone must be in charge," Mr. Caulfield pointed out. Mr. Walker replied that a federal agency would be in charge only because it is an NRA. Tim Dow asked if one of the alternatives is considering whether many of the same objectives could be accomplished through local zoning and leave it all with local County or City control, and thereby not giving up the kinds of things that we may be required to give up. Mr. Walker answered, "yes, the first alternative we have prepared is called no federal action. In between are ones like state involvement or over a certain period of time perhaps tak- ing advantage of federal funds that would allow federal involvement." Water Board Mixes January 20, 1989 Page 9 - Dr. Sanders suggested that a Water Board committee be formed to look into this more closely. Ray Herrmann volunteered to be a member of that commit- tee. Copies of the Conceptual Management Proposal for the Poudre Canyon Water Treatment Plant, developed by Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recre- ation, were distributed to members of the Board with their packets. Joe Maurier with the Parks Division, introduced six people, 2 with the Colo- rado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and 4 with the Division of Wildlife. Their names appear on the first page under guests. A few years ago the Division of Parks became involved in the lower "Picnic Rock" area in the Canyon to handle some management and health and sanitation problems. The study that evolved during that time, also identified safety as another issue at the put -in, especially as it relates to rafting, kayaking and commercial interests. About 4-5,000 commercial and private boaters use that site each summer. As the Division looked at this they realized there was far more potential than just using the site as a kayaking and river raft- ing put -in point. The Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant property offers a unique management opportunity for the Parks Division because it has the potential to offer many kinds of recreational activities. The DPOR is pro- posing that the development and management of the site be accomplished in phases. User fees would be charged at the area to help defray operation and maintenance costs. First, to build any facilities the Parks Division requires a relatively long lease just to recoup the cost of the associated facilities. Craig Bergman from the Division of Parks, explained what is proposed during each of the phases with the use of slides of the area. He emphasized that they plan to do nothing that would detract from the character of the area as it exists now. Following are the planned phases as they appear in the executive summary: During Phase I, limited development would occur and the area would be managed as a day use facility. Major activities would include rafting/kayaking, pic- nicking, fishing and environmental education. Basic facilities would be pro- vided such as restrooms, parking, picnic tables, grills and one house used as an office/environmental education center. Phase II would involve further development of the site including the area behind the water treatment building. Parking lots would be constructed and the ponds dredged and stocked with fish. If access to the Seaman Reservoir area was allowed, more picnic sites and parking areas would be provided. A plan for the use of House #3 would be implemented and a study completed for the use of the main water treatment building and large cement pond. Finally, permanent restroom facilities would be built and a management plan completed for the area. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Page 10 Phase III would be the final phase of development. Facilities built during this phase would depend on the studies which were included in Phase II. Potential development could include: The main water treatment building; a trail system; land trades or purchases. Steve Puttmann, from the Division of Wildlife, spoke briefly about the pro- posed fishing aspects of the plan, particularly relating to fishing for the handicapped and for children. The DOW receives numerous requests for those kinds of fishing opportunities, he related. There are not many good places on the front range for these activities, he said. He also explained the pos- sibility of providing a non -consumptive wildlife experience by constructing an aquarium -type facility where people could view the fish. He is convinced that there appears to be a great need for this kind of recreation area. He firmly believes that they can raise fish up there too. "This facility offers the potential for raising all the fish on the site," he stressed. "The area has enormous capabilities, particularly for people in Fort Collins, adults and children alike," he concluded "With a lease arrangement," Dave Stewart asked, "what is the City's liability if a flood should come through there?" One of the reasons the City abandoned the site as a treatment facility is the flood potential. Mr. Puttmann replied that the City and the Division of Parks are mutually covered by the government Immunities Act, which means that the Division is responsible for anything that involves recreation or any of the visitors that are in there for recreational purposes. The City would have liability for the facilities they own or are responsible for, Mike Smith added. Mr. Stewart asked how we would protect our intake. It's already fenced off, Mr. Puttmann assured. However, some improvements to the fence would be nec- essary. Tom Moore asked if the City's Parks and Recreation Department has looked at this. Mike Smith replied that our Parks people would like to do something like that, but they don't have the resources. However, they are very sup- portive of the idea. Mr. Moore is very reluctant to have the City give this up without thoroughly looking into other possibilities. Mr. Smith assured Mr. Moore that if the state does it, it will be a joint effort. Both the City and the State will be developing the site. Mr. Maurier emphasized that the idea has been to provide an outdoor education center for all local user groups, including Poudre R-1. Ray Herrmann asked if Fort Collins residents would be paying state park fees. The same fees that are charged at the Picnic Rock site would apply here, Mr. Maurier responded. He clarified this by saying that the State Park Service needs to get to the point of charging the appropriate fee for the appropriate services. It probably is not fair to charge someone $3.00 at Picnic Rock when they pay the same amount to get into Boyd Lake with $5 million worth of facilities. "We are now considering some differential fees," he said,"like $1.00 per car or $1.00 per head. For Picnic Rock, they do charge $3.00, except for someone who just wants to use the toilet facilities and leave. Water Board Mims . January 20, 1989 Page 11 . Mike Smith asked if the State would consider a lower fee for City residents since it is City property. Mr. Maurier doesn't know if statutorially the State can do that. "It's certainly something we can explore," he said. "However, anything you do to reduce those fees, may ultimately reduce service to people using the area," he pointed out. Mr. Caulfield was surprised that all of the discussion here today has been under the assumption that Grey Mountain would not be built; particularly with the idea of a long term development as has been suggested. He added, how- ever, that the Water Board has not taken a position on Grey Mountain, but it is still being pursued by the NCWCD. Mr. Maurier responded that as an agency they have two concerns: one is the current status of that project. "Let's just assume for now that we are look- ing at 10-15 years down the road for that project. In my view," he said, "we have an opportunity to solve an immediate safety problem on the highway. In addition to that, we have a fantastic opportunity to provide some recreation at least for 15 years." In terms of the dam, their position is basically neutral and if a dam is decided upon, their role is to determine the kinds of facilities for recreation. "I do think it is wise to move slowly," he con- ceded, "and at this point it is wise for the City to hold onto the property." Tom Moore asked the value of the property. Mike Smith said it's slightly under $1 million. "We receive nothing for this lease?" "That's correct, Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Puttmann offered a scenario. "Let's say the City decided to sell the property at that appraisal price," he began. "The possibility exists now with the Fishing Is Fun Program that the DOW, the DOPOR and the City of Fort Collins could mutually put together a FIF project which would allow for the purchase of this. He simply wanted to point out that the potential exists and the money is there to do it. Mr. Caulfield thanked the DOPOR and the DOW for their presentation. I'm sure we will be discussing this further, he said. Jim Kuiken's Resignation Mr. Caulfield announced that Jim Kuiken has found it necessary to resign from the Water Board, effective immediately, because of conflicts with his employ- ment. He then read Mr. Kuiken's letter of resignation. "We all appreciate Jim's contribution to the Board," Mr. Caulfield said. Marylou Smith wanted the record to show that "Jim has been very frank and forthcoming with his comments whether they were popular or not, and that took a certain amount of courage. We really appreciate his nearly two years of service on the Board," she said. A letter of recognition will be sent to Jim Kuiken on behalf of the Board and the Utility staff. Staff Reports Mike Smith said there was nothing new on the District agreement. Regarding the Gravel Ponds proposal, that was presented at the last meeting, Mr. Smith said that the Board needs to make a decision about it at their February meeting. A few Board members took advantage of a tour of the ponds recently. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1989 Page 12 .,. He said that staff has not reached any conclusions at this point. Input from the Board would be appreciated. Dave Stewart requested an operations summary (how it would work) in the Water Board packets next time. Along with that, Mr. Caulfield asked for a list of the benefits to the City in relation to the cost. Mr. Smith brought the Board's attention to the letter in their packets from Alden V. Hill regarding the Mountain View Sanitation District. This is for information only, he said. It is an item we will be addressing at a future meeting. Basically, the City contracted with Mountain View Sanitation District in the 60s to provide treatment services. It was agreed that when the bonds were paid off, the District would be dissolved and the City would take over the system. The City currently maintains the system and bills the District. Now it is time for dissolution. In order to do that, an agreement needs to be prepared and an election held. Mr. Smith will ask the City Attorney to draw up an agreement which the Water Board can review next time. There don't seem to be too many issues that would concern the Board, he said. The District is asking for in -City rates which would have a small impact. It makes sense to the staff to go along with that because we have been serving them, he believes. They have paid for their filter facilities and it doesn't cost any more to serve them then it does anyone else. Henry Caulfield pointed out that they don't want a contract that involves annexation. Isn't it the City's policy to require annexation in these cases, he asked. Mr. Smith admitted that this is the issue where there may be some concern. There are no customers inside the City limits at this time. How- ever, they all want City rates and City benefits. Mr. Caulfield sees no rea- son for us to waive our policies "unless there is something he doesn't know about." Mr. Smith said the Board can discuss this issue later when more information is available. Mike Smith distributed a memo describing a water rental agreement with the Nature Conservancy for an option to rent North Poudre shares from the City. No action from the Board is necessary. Mr. Smith announced that the Water Supply and the Engineering Committees need t0 make arrangements to meet. Some water purchase opportunities require the attention of the Water Supply Committee, and the Water Treatment Plant No. 2 Optimization Study is ready for the Engineering Committee to review. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. l.- Water BoaVd Secretary