Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/26/1988Ap Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Scott, Ray Herrmann, MaryLou Jim Kuiken (alt.) and Chester WATER BOARD MINUTES May 26, 1988 Caulfield, Vice President, Tom Sanders, John Smith, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Watson (alt.) Guest John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Acting City Attorney Members Absent Neil Grigg President Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Jim Kuiken commented at the last meeting on the issue of what frequency to set for a drought. He used the analogy of a flood and how we would determine what damages might occur before we decide to spend money on flood protection. He feels we should do the same thing for drought; essentially evaluate what the costs are before we spend money on buying water. The minutes of April 15, 1988 were approved as amended. John Bigham, Agency Coordinator for the NCWCD announced that the District Board has approved the audit reports and they are currently being printed. As far as projected runoffs, the water supply is approximately normal. The recent rains have obviously helped the situation. On May 17, the voltage dip test was performed on the Windy Gap pumping system and the engineers are evaluating the data. At this point there are no recommendations or conclu- sions. Production pumping with Windy Gap is anticipated June 1 or later: "As long as we are in that upper hydrograph, we hope to run all four pumps at once which will firm up the 600 cfs decrees; then pump with one or possibly 2 pumps for a period of time until we are able to put 6600 AF into storage. Water Acquisition Discussion Mike Smith announced that City Council has passed the resolution and ordi- nances acquiring the water that the Board has been discussing at several recent meetings. The second reading was on Tuesday May 24. The total amount of the purchase was $2,196,250 and included 1610 units of CBT water and 250 shares of North Poudre stock. The closing on part of that water will take place mid -June. Item 5 of today's agenda, NCWCD Municipal Subdistrict Inclu- sion Policy, has some bearing on this acquisition. The question at this Water Board Minutes May 26, 1988 Page 2 point is, do we want to acquire more water? Staff has received a number of phone calls from various people offering to sell their water and the price has not gone up; for example CBT water at $800-825 and North Poudre at $3400-3500. Mr. Smith suggested that the Board return to this item after discussing item 5 on the agenda. John Bigham from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, brought drafts of a resolution which he distributed to Board members. (The resolu- tion is attached.) Mike Smith said that about two weeks ago, he attended a District meeting at which they adopted a resolution with regard to bringing subdistrict inclusions up to date. Mr. Smith allowed the Board a few minutes to read the resolution which states: A municipality or any other legal entity which holds first use rights to Windy Gap water, whether by allotment con- tract, or lease, purchase, exchange, or other form of contractual arrange- ment, shall have its Subdistrict inclusions up-to-date, so as to include all lands and uses connected to its water service system, or eligible for service from such system, at the time it applies under the Board's rules, regulations -and policies; to hold additional Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) units. Where the governing body of the municipality or another legal entity has entered a binding commitment to bring the Subdistrict inclusions up to date, and a rea- sonable period of time is set for accomplishing this in such binding commit- ment, the Board may approve the allotment of additional CBT units to the municipality or another legal entity, in conformance with the Board's rules, regulations, and policies, but the allotment contracts shall not be executed by the Board president or staff until such inclusions are up to date and approved by the District Court for Weld County, so as to include all lands and uses connected to its water service system, or eligible for service from such system. Attorney Paul Eckman noted that the resolution was labeled as a draft. "Has it been adopted?" Mr. Bigham said it was adopted by the District Board but it will be part of the minutes and the minutes have not been officially approved. All that remains is the approval of the minutes unless the Board chooses to take some additional action on it, he added. Chairman Evans summarized the resolution. In essence, inclusion of all the lands served by the City would be required as a precondition of the assign- ment of any CBT water. Mike Smith recalled that the Water Board recommended doing this in 1985. Paul Eckman had drafted an ordinance at that time which, after considerable discussion, was approved by the Water Board. However, the City Council chose not to act upon it, because there was no urgency to do so then. Mr. Eckman explained that at that time "we didn't have the question of the CBT water; only whether we would be able to use our 4200 AF of Windy Gap water by con- tract with PRPA. We had tried the argument that we would designate that water for the older part of town which was in the Subdistrict. The Conser- vancy District would not agree to that." Mike Smith added that the Windy Gap water now used by the City, is designated for use by Anheuser-Busch which has been included in the Subdistrict. r Water Board Minute May 26, 1988 Page 3 Dr. Evans cited a concern that was expressed in 1984 regarding the open ques- tion of an ad valorem tax that might be levied by the Subdistrict. In the discussions of the formation of the Subdistrict, and those that preceded it through the Six City Coordinating Committee, there had a been a positive intention of all of the six cities not to finance Windy Gap through an ad valorem tax; the intention being that each city would find its own way of financing. But, the formation of a subdistrict automatically brings along with it, the power to assess an ad valorem tax. "We were somewhat concerned about the portion of the City that would be subject to that assessment. It was not the overriding concern, however." Nevertheless, that may have been one reason the Council didn't take action, he suggested. Mr. Eckman confirmed that the Water Board had continuing concerns about that 1 mill levy tax. The City received a letter from John Sayre, one of the attorneys for the District, stating that the District would have the statu- tory right to levy up to 1 mill of tax on us. They also have the right to levy assessments but since we are not an owner of Windy Gap water, we would not be subject to an assessment, but we could be subject to the 1 mill tax. In the letter from Mr. Sayre he stated, "Nevertheless, there has been a gentlemen's agreement between the Municipal Subdistrict and the participants to the effect that the District would not impose this 1 mill levy." He also said that one board can't bind a future board, etc. Mr. Smith related that on September 20, 1985 the Water Board took action on this issue. They recommended to the City Council that they proceed with the inclusion. At that time Mr. Caulfield listed five reasons to recommend approval which are summarized below: 1) The City presently has a right to the first use of 4200 acre feet of Windy Gap water under its reuse plan. 2) The City wants to be in a position to use the remaining PRPA water on a first use basis, free or on some specified charge, if and when that comes about. 3) The City wants to keep its right of first refusal by contract. 4) The primary liability for the cost of Windy Gap water is by the participants which does not include Fort Collins. 5) The equity question since part of the City is already included. Mr. Caulfield recalled that "the only real gut reason to be concerned about this is the fact that Windy Gap is high priced water and whether Estes Park and others could be financially embarrassed in such a way that the Municipal Subdistrict would be forced, for example, to levy a property tax in order to take care of the bonds." What has brought this issue back to the table again is the City's purchase of CBT water. Proper legal action with regard to the inclusion issue has never been accomplished. Mr. Caulfield asserted that the key point is if we are going to proceed with the purchase of more CBT water, we must get this matter cleared up and get approval from the Council. Water Board Minutes May 26, 1988 Page 4 Staff recommends that the Board take the same action they took in September of 1985. Henry Caulfield moved, and Mary Lou Smith seconded the motion, that the Water Board communicate to the City Council the Board's earlier position and repeat the recommendation that the City petition into the Subdistrict, the remaining area within its boundaries. The motion passed with 9 yes votes and 1 abstention from John Scott who is an employee of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Following the vote there was a discussion on what should be included accord- ing to the resolution. Mike Smith suggested that, in order to avoid compli- cations, that we recommend they include the entire City of Fort Collins. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the only argument against it would be the question of the mill levy. "There would be a potential mill levy on people who aren't going to get City water in the ELCO and Fort Collins -Loveland Water Dis- tricts; that's a technical possibility," he added. The -discussion then returned to water acquisition. Ray Herrmann asked how Council's approval of the Municipal Subdistrict inclusion policy will affect the acquisition of water. Mike Smith replied: "The NCWCD Board will then approve the present transfer of CBT water." Mr. Smith said the question at hand is, does the Water Board wish to pursue further acquisitions? Henry Caulfield referred to an article in the Rocky Mountain News on May 24 headlined: "Northern Dam Beats Two Forks." He prefaced his remarks by saying that he has no knowledge about the accuracy or validity of the article. Essentially, the article outlined the plan for constructing a 300-foot high dam below the confluence of the North and South forks of the St. Vrain River, just east of the Town of Lyons and west of the intersection of Colorado High- ways 36 and 66. It would collect water from at least four major water sources -- the South Fork St. Vrain Creek, the North Fork of St. Vrain Creek, the North and South Forks of the Little Thompson River (via existing St. Vrain Supply Canal), and Windy Gap Water Project (again, via existing St. Vrain Supply Canal). The article concludes that "compromises to the Two Forks Dam will undoubtedly involve construction of smaller projects elsewhere. A dam in Boulder County ought to be considered a possibility." Mr. Caulfield emphasized that the article suggested this water would be available for metro -Denver acquisition; "in other words, it passes over the question of the boundary." The only reason he brought the Board's attention to the article is to make certain that they know about it. "This confirms what we've talked about for over a year now, that things and ideas are moving north. In terms of our policies, we need to be vigilant in protecting ourselves," he urged. Therefore, with this in mind, he wished to entertain some kind of a proposal to the staff for another acquisition. Ray Herrmann wonders if it is not time to shift the acquisition priorities too, and start acquiring "all the North Poudre we can get, so that we are locking up water that could potentially leave the basin; the idea being that CBT is pretty safe right now, even though it's better water." Mr. Caulfield pointed out that North Poudre is 50% CBT. Norm Evans believes that Mr. Herr- mann's point is very important. Dr. Evans has felt for a long time that Water Board Minute -� May 26, 1988 Page 5 North Poudre should be the City's strong concern. There are several ways of tying up water, he said, one being leases with farmers. Mr. Caulfield added that "we have also talked about Halligan Reservoir and N.P. Reservoirs 5 and 6. Mike Smith explained that the feasibility work is just beginning on Halli- gan. The Utility recently received proposals from various engineers. One will be selected over the next few weeks. "That doesn't mean that we build it right away, but we make a decision to go ahead with North Poudre." Mr. Caulfield contends that the "more we own of N.P. the more sense it makes to go in that direction." Mr. Smith pointed out that the City does not have much in the way of reserves to buy water. If we decide to buy more, we would want to look at borrowing money to do that," he said. John Scott asked what happened to the proposal for the $1 million trust fund. Was that presented to the Council? Mr. Caulfield explained that the current $2 million+ proposal "pushed that off the table." MaryLou Smith asked what that trust fund was and when it was discussed. The idea was proposed at a special meeting of the Water Board which Ms. Smith was unable to attend. She was concerned that, because the meeting was off the record, no written information was available through the minutes. It was pointed out that minutes stating what was proposed and the vote taken by the Board were distributed. Mike Smith explained that it was proposed that the City appropriate $1 million in a trust fund in order to be able to buy water when good buys of water are available. Ms. Smith wonders about the back- ground of how the motion came to pass when that part is not recorded in the minutes. Should we not have a written record of that for those who are involved? "It's a question we need to look into as we consider the touchy water acquisition items," she asserted. Attorney Paul Eckman explained that when you declare an off the record or an executive session, if you make a written record it becomes a public document under the open records act, so you couldn't just limit it to certain individuals, unless it is somehow designated as a privileged communication. Jim Kuiken asked if there is a way to do some kind of lease back or have some kind of leverage with those people who are making offers now or is it strictly a "take it or leave it purchase?" Most of them are "take it or leave it," Mr. Smith replied. However, some of them may want to lease water back after we buy it. Tom Moore asked if staff had something specific in mind regarding the acqui- sition of water. Mr. Smith responded that the way he sees it, "we bought some water and nothing else is going to happen unless we decide we are going to buy more water." If the Water Board decides we should buy more water, staff can work on some financing schemes as options. If the Board decides that we have just purchased 2500 AF of water and they feel comfortable with that for the time being, staff will act accordingly. MaryLou Smith understands that the Council/Water Board committee known as the Water Supply Policy Committee (WSPC), of which she is a member, has been directed to make recommendations to the Water Board about that. At their next meeting they will be discussing how much water to acquire, how soon, and Water Board Minutes May 26, 1988 Page 6 how to pay for it. She is somewhat unsure of the protocol involved here. The committee is making strides and is looking at some things in depth that the water Board hasn't been able to take the time to do. The Committee will be able to provide scenarios to the Board and the Council with some recommend- ations as to what our long term strategy should be on water acquisition. Mike Smith recalled that the three council members on the committee agreed that it was up to the Water Board to decide if they want to buy more water. Henry Caulfield, also a member of the WSPC, thought this would be a good time to bring the Water Board up to date on the committee's activities. The group adopted the concept of the higher per capita use; namely the 230 gpcd analy- sis. Given our situation without meters and the higher per capita use the last few years, it is likely to be that or more. The implications of that are that approximately 15,000 AF would need to be purchased over and above that which the developers are going to give the City with the current Raw Water Requirements (RWR), by the year 2035. The committee is still struggling with who should pay for the water over and above what's going to be furnished by the RWR. Staff had provided information that suggested different alterna- tives which, instead of putting the burden on new houses, part would be new -houses an&,part from the 0&M reserve. The committee will be discussing that on June 9. The important thing for the Water Board is the 15,000 AF that we will need by the year 2035. We have bought 2500 of that already by the recent transaction. The issue now is should we purchase more water at the $825 price? Is it better to buy now or later? Mr. Caulfield's guess is that it is better to buy now. Marylou Smith added that the committee is also looking at how soon to buy the water and how to pay for it. Jim Kuiken made some observations on "how soon." "We have a new airport on the way, and if you look at Dallas and Atlanta, their airports sparked tre- mendous growth booms for both of those cities. We are talking about an air- port that is bigger than in either of those cities." It is only logical to assume that there will be a large population increase on the northeast side of Denver. "If you look at where the water comes from now in that native area, there is not a whole lot. If you look at Two Forks and the pressure it's been receiving, there probably will be compromises and I don't think we are going to see as big a Two Forks as is being proposed currently, which means there will be more pressure to the north." Henry Caulfield related that those who were at Craig Harrison's recently learned from him that he sees new purchases occurring in the triangle between Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland. Development will take place on land that is presently without water. It won't be conversion of irrigated agricultural land so it will require additional purchases of water to meet the need. Jim Kuiken believes that the committee could benefit from some of the exper- tise on the Water Board in some of these matters. Mary Lou Smith said that is happening already because what is said by the Water Board is passed on to the committee via the three Water Board members who are on that committee. Water Board Minute* • May 26, 1988 Page 7 Henry Caulfield said that "the members of that committee from the Council are as much or more interested in buying water now than any of us. The only issue for them is who is going to pay for it." Therefore, Mr. Caulfield believes it is very germane to talk about any proposals staff may have, or that staff come back to the Board, even in a special meeting, with proposals for purchase and the financing. Norm Evans emphasized that there is no question in anybody's mind that what we must do is protect the water in the northern area as best we can. There are ways to do it in addition to our buying it. One way sometimes discussed, is purchase of water by the Northern District. That is a tactic that has been used in a county in California for the good of the whole region. Has that been discussed in the Northern District? John Bigham said it has been discussed at Board meetings. He thinks it would probably have to be under the subdistrict to do that, and that is where the 1 mill levy as a tax for purchasing was discussed. He believes the Windy Gap participants have discussed that also, but there haven't been any serious discussions as yet. To Mr. Bigham's knowledge, there haven't been any pre- sentations at the subdistrict level, just general discussions. Henry Caulfield asked why it must be the subdistrict. This would be a ques- tion of buying water with the reserve funds that the District has. You would hold it in trust for Greeley, Fort Collins, Loveland and Boulder. It's Mr. Bigham's understanding that it has to do with the bonding. The subdistrict has certain regulations that allow it to move forward for bonding and take on indebtedness in a different way than the District does. Mr. Caulfield has the impression that the District has very substantial financial reserves and these reserves could be held in the form of water, not just in money. He added that he realizes this is probably not the time to discuss this question. Dr. Evans referred to a section in the Windy Gap minutes which stated that the cites contain nearly 65% of the taxable property in the District. Jim Kuiken said he had also heard that figure quoted. Mr. Caulfield believes it means the value of the property. Mr. Bigham agreed to that; "but 65% of the volume, no." Mr. Caulfield said that Dr. Evans raised an important point that ought to be explained. If you look into the future, well into the next century, the idea of the District holding substantial reserves at low prices is significant. Talking about regionalization, this would be the logical way to approach it rather than Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Greeley, etc. forming a metro- politan district type of organization and jointly holding water. "At least as kind of a first step for this area, the District could be the holder of water -- maybe." Jim Kuiken said he would like to pursue that idea, but it gets us off the track here, and that is what's best for Fort Collins. With a simple whim of the District Board, they could overturn their direction and go a different way; they are holding the water. "We could lose out, so we must think about what is best for Fort Collins," he urged. Water Board Minutes J May 26, 1988 Page 8 Dr. Evans agreed with Mr. Kuiken in terms of the item before the Board. He raised the question because he thought in the long run, it's a good question. There are other ways besides the District doing it, he said. He believes that we ought to be moving toward the overall regional interest in the long term and getting together to acquire water for the sake of protecting it. Henry Caulfield moved that the Water Board request that staff return to the Board with a new proposal that lists options for further purchases of water as soon as feasible. Jim Kuiken seconded the motion. Regarding the $1 million trust proposal, John Scott wanted to know if Council opposed that idea. Mr. Smith replied that they didn't have problems with the idea of having that money available as water offers are received, but a couple of members expressed concern about the Council not being the final determining body in what is purchased. '^ Dave Stewart asked what kind of liability the Board would assume if they became the authority for deciding on how those funds are spent. Mike Smith explained: "The Board would not be appropriating.the money; the Council would. The only thing the Board would be doing is saying what water to buy and at what cost." Jim Kuiken cited a recent case where the Library Board was given an $80,000 gift and the Council nearly rejected it because they were reluctant to give the Library Board the authority to spend that money; and that was a gift! What about the Water Board deciding how to spend a million dollars of the City's appropriation? Tom Sanders isn't convinced that the Board should have that responsibility. Those are the kinds of decisions the Council is elected to make, he believes. He made another point relating to the motion regarding Rockwell Reservoir. He thinks Rockwell and other storage projects should be addressed when con- sidering acquisition of more water. Mary Lou Smith indicated support for the motion. "I certainly wouldn't want us to pass up any opportunities in the next month to buy water at $825, and find at the next meeting it has gone up to $1000," she said. On the other hand, Ms. Smith is very much a long range planner and she would like to know what our long range plan is before "we buy bits and pieces here and there." She wants it on the record that she thinks it is very important that we get these acquisitions to fall into some kind of plan of how we are going to pay for it and who is going to pay for it. Tom Sanders contends that in the area of long range planning, we should be acquiring controlling shares in some of the ditch companies. Dave Stewart thinks that one thing we need to be cautious about is being accused of being speculative about our water rights. "If we have lots of water and we can't lease it out or can't do something with it, we are going to have problems try- ing to protect it," he asserted. Henry Caulfield asked Mr. Stewart if he is really concerned about that. "Yes, I am," he said. We are going out and Water Board Minute May 26, 1988 Page 9 speculating that Fort Collins is going to grow. Can you do that, he asked. Tom Moore voiced his concern too, particularly in light of all the legal action of recent years. Attorney Paul Eckman replied that he doesn't think that anybody could challenge a purchase of CBT water that we make or some ditch company water. We own it; that's our water. The challenge that you might be thinking of is if we have a diversion and we haven't diverted, have we abandoned it; that the kind of thing. "If we are so heavy on water that we don't need to divert, we might have to look at that," he cautioned. Mike Smith added that the Excalibur case is very different from what Dave Stewart is talking about. Once the City owns the water and has determined it is for municipal use, and at the points of diversion you want it, it is extremely difficult for anyone to say it is abandoned. According to the "Great and Growing City concept, you can continue to sit on the water until you are ready to use it. The issue with Excalibur and others is where you have ditch water or non -municipal water. When you change that use to municipal some historical use is usually imposed on it. If you wait for a long time and don't change the use, you could be accused of abandoning it. Paul Eckman added that the principal enunciated by the Supreme Court is that cities can plan for the future and acquire water in anticipation of future growth. Henry Caulfield called for the question. The vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Committee Reports Engineering Committee Chairman Dave Stewart reported that the Committee asked President Evans to write a letter to the Mayor in support of Two Forks as a way of helping to protect the Northern Colorado water Supply. It is the Committee's hope that the City will prepare a resolution supporting Two Forks and send it to the governor. Mr. Stewart also reported that the committee listed 8 areas/goals that they want to look at in the coming year: 1. Industrial wastewater pretreatment 2. Clean Water Act and its effects on the wastewater system, and get an update on the biomonitoring 3. Safe Drinking Water Act and its effects on the water treatment and dis- tribution system; also an update on corrosion and its effect on water quality 4. The water rights issues and protection of water rights as they relate to Anheuser-Busch 5. The hydroelectric power potential at Water Treatment Plant No. 2 6. Impact on water rights with regard to the Clean Water Act (especially as it relates to A-B and the Platte River Power Authority) 7. Investigation of different water supplies: 1) Ground water pumping as alternate supply 2) Go over non-structural options on Poudre study 3) Update on Rockwell 4) Halligan Reservoir 8. Two Forks Position Water Board Minutes May 26, 1988 Page 10 Tom Moore asked if there should be a vote from the full Board on the support of Two Forks. Mr. Stewart thought that was a good idea. Norm Evans said that he wrote to the Mayor reporting the Engineering Committee's support for Two Forks and the reasons behind their support of the project. Dr. Evans requested that this information be forwarded to the Governor. He made it clear in his letter that the full Board had not acted on that suggestion. Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board support construction of the Two Forks Reservoir to protect northern Colorado water interests. Dave Stewart sec- onded the motion. John Scott related that the City of Boulder sent a letter to the Governor stating that they do not support the construction of Two Forks Jim Kuiken said that he can not support the project the way it is presently conceived. Ray Herrmann agreed with Mr. Kuiken's assessment of the project. Mary Lou Smith stated that she is not opposed but she hasn't studied Two Forks because she knew she didn't have to have a decision making input into the project. Henry Caulfield suggested changing the wording of the motion to: The Board is concerned about maintaining adequate supplies of water in Northern Colorado. Therefore, the Board is supportive of any moves that could be taken by metro - Denver, including the possibility of Two Forks, to solve its own water prob- lems. Ray Herrmann contends that the issue is Two Forks. "It is not a well designed project and may never be a well designed project. If those problems can't be solved, I think we are better off staying out of the way," he said. However, he did state that he would favor any kind of a motion that says let Denver solve its own problems. Mr. Smith brought copies of a letter that the Mayor has already sent to the Governor. Even though the letter has been sent, Mr. Herrmann wants the Council to know that the Water Board is not unanimous in the recommendation to support Two Forks. Jim Kuiken said he believes the minutes would reflect that. After a brief exchange, Henry Caulfield agreed to withdraw his motion since neither Jim Kuiken nor Ray Herrmann felt comfortable supporting his motion either. The question was called and the secretary polled the Board with the following results: Dave Stewart, yes; Tom Moore, yes; Jim Kuiken, no; John Scott, yes; Chester Watson, yes; Ray Herrmann, no; Norm Evans, yes; Tom Sanders, yes; Henry Caulfield, a qualified yes; Mary Lou Smith, abstained. The motion car- ried 6-2 with one qualified yes and 1 abstention. Mike Smith related that the Mayor's letter does not state support for Two Forks. Regional Supply Committee Report on Regional Water Quality Meeting Henry Caulfield substituted as moderator of that meeting for Norm Evans who wasn't able to be there. Mr. Caulfield reported that Mark Alston, Chief of the Drinking Water Division, USEPA, Region VIII, and Jerry Beberstein, Chief Water Board Minute . May 26, 1988 Page 11 of the Drinking Water Quality Section, Colorado Division of Water Quality Control, were guest speakers at the regional water quality meeting held on May 9 at the University Park Holiday Inn. The speakers gave an account of the new Clean Water Act requirements, discussed many details in terms of individual types of chemicals, etc. They did not distribute any written material. From Mr. Caulfield's perspective, the substance of what they said is basically the following: The Court decided on 65 chemicals, and the Con- gress has listed even more that are to be considered by EPA for deciding whether they are toxic and their values. These chemicals will be evaluated over a several year period. In other words, it will be a number of years before we have a definitive answer, if we ever do, on what is in the Safe Drinking Water Act. It may turn out that some on the list may not be needing values; it also may be determined that some need them badly. Nevertheless, the EPA is far from "having a lot of information already that the state has to fear and tremble about; let alone us," Mr. Caulfield assured. Therefore, this is something we need to keep on top of as the months and years go by, but it is nothing we need to be concerned about "tomorrow, the next day or January." Mike Smith added that no doubt the numbers are going to change. The main thrust now is to monitor and test things. The primary element the EPA is emphasizing now is lead. The Utility has published a lead notice in the newspapers which is required. Flyers have also been inserted in all the Util- ity bills sent out to customers. Probably the next issue will be corrosive water, which the Utility is already addressing. That could be an expense for many communities which they don't have now. Mr. Caulfield continued by saying that the meeting was good for the purpose for which it was intended. The idea of people of the region being together to learn about and discuss a common problem was good. A possible beginning of regionalization was also accomplished. There was nothing overt about getting together and solving the problems. "Each of us will do our own thing, but with a common source of information. Hopefully we can work together and help each other in solving these problems." Tom Moore sat next to a couple at the meeting from Wellington. They brought a sample of their water, the quality of which has been a source of concern and frustration for them. To find someone to test the water is a real problem. These people have tried several alternatives. They can't get it tested quickly enough or economically enough and more of this is being demanded of our smaller neighbors. Can we use our labs to test other's water on a strictly business basis? Is this a business service we can perform on a competitive level? Mike Smith reponded that the Utility has thought about it, but we have hesitated because there are labs in town that are certified to provide that service. Water Board member Dave Stewart's lab is one. "We have"tested for Wellington on a one time basis," he admitted. Dave Stewart said, "from the standpoint of a private lab, we don't have a problem with the City doing that as a one time shot, but for the City to go into the busi- ness, unless they are going to charge competitive prices, would be a disser- vice to the existing private labs." "On a regional supply issue, did we have any direction," Jim Kuiken asked. Henry Caulfield replied, "no." Should we have another meeting? "I think that's up to us," Mr. Caulfield replied. Water Board Minutes May 26, 1988 Page 12 Mike Smith reported that the contract with the District on sharing a large westside 60" pipeline is closer to being a reality. He needs to know what Water Board committee needs to look at this with the staff once the draft is completed. Dr. Evans asked what kind of assessment needs to be made. Mr. Smith replied that the tone of the agreement is regional cooperation between Fort Collins and the District in sharing water supplies and use of the pipeline. It needs a perspective of regional cooperation as well as what is good for the City, and to make sure staff has covered the issues the City should be concerned about. Some water quality issues need to be addressed also. Dr. Evans decided it should be done with the Engineering Committee. Mr. Smith said staff will contact the committee and begin the.review. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that the month of April was about 90% of what had been projected. May has been fairly dry so far and water use was quite high for few days. Tiaely rain-5y_however, helped to alleviate the heavy use. Henry Caulfield asked how the Utility is handling everything from Water Treatment Plant No. 2. Is the expansion at the plant already in productive use? Mr. Smith replied that it is working okay at this point. The only thing that isn't operating quite well yet is the pipeline between plants 1 and 2 carrying the raw water. Hopefully it will be functioning properly by the end of the week. "We can put 64 MGD through Plant No. 2 now," Mr. Smith added. He also related that, unfortunately, we haven't been able to use river water for more than 6 months. Other Business At this point, the Board went off the record to discuss the Excalibur situa- tion. Norm Evans announced that his term is up July 1 and he decided not to seek re-apppointment to the Board. The June meeting will be his final one after serving 25 years on the Board. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Water Boa d Secretary