Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/18/198711111L4d#9 Water Board September 18, 1987 Members Norm Evans, President, John Scott, Marylou Smith, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Tom Sanders, Jim Kuiken (alt.) Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Andy Pineda, Ben Alexander, Curt Miller, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests Ron Hellbusch, Director Public Works/Utilities, Westminster, Colorado Darell Zimbleman, Assistant Manager, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, NCWCD Gary Kimsey, Representative from Preserve Our Poudre Members Absent Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Jo Boyd, Ray Herrmann, Chester Watson (alt.) President Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The discussion of the minutes was moved to the end of the agenda. Update. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District President Evans welcomed Darell Zimbleman and John Bigham from the NCWCD. Mr. Zimbleman announced that the District is celebrating its 50th anniver- sary. He brought commemorative anniversary publications for Water Board and staff members. He also announced that on Wednesday, Sept. 16 the Bureau and District are beginning negotiations for the District to take over the remainder of the CBT project. That announcement was made to the employees of both agencies. As a result, the District staff will probably increase by about 50 people to pri- marily operate those power plants from the east portal down to and including flatiron. "We see this as just a logical transition process that was started a couple of years ago when the west slope facilities were transferred to us," he explained. This is consistent with other Bureau projects that are trans- ferred to local operators. Dr. Evans interjected a comment that "they haven't done that very much. I don't know how many, but there are not very many projects that have been transferred. I know that the Bureau has felt a responsibility for 0&M theoretically until the contracting district is capa- ble of doing it themselves, but they don't turn very many over, so I think this is a real credit to the Northern District!" Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Zimbleman went on to say that the negotiations are just beginning. Larry Simpson has written letters to all the preferred power customers including Fort Collins and PRPA, stating that it is the District's intention to operate the power part of the project and to do it economically and efficiently. "In no way will what we are doing affect the preferred customer." All the power will go to WAPA and it is part of the post 89 contract allotment. In the long run, hopefully, delivery will be improved because the District can coordinate directly with WAPA on the scheduling of the power. Mike Smith asked if the Bureau employees will become District employees. Mr. Zimbleman replied yes, there is a group of employees, particularly the power plant operators, the Loveland Control Center Operators, some plant mechanics, some electricians, some of the water schedulers, and some of the electrical engineers who are working on plant modernization and rehabilitation. "It is the District's hope that we can convince those people to work for us. The remainder of the Bureau employees we will offer jobs to the degree that they fit with our needs." It is not in the District's or the Bureau's interest for us to hire people we don't have need for. One of the reasons we are try- ing to consolidate is to reduce some duplication. Mr. Zimbleman said that Representative Norton called him about working out a plan for the City's instream flow requests. He asked how far the effort has gone. Mr. Zimbleman will make an effort next week to determine the progress on that. "When there is something worth talking about, we will meet with you," he said. Dr. Evans asked if a plan is being developed. Mr. Zimbleman responded that it would be more concerned with ideas that we can explore. Other agricultural diverters downstream would also like to be involved, he added. Dr. Evans referred to the minutes of the last District meeting which con- tained an item concerning A-B transfers of water. What's the situation? Mr. Zimbleman said the District Board approved the transfer and the applica- tion for transfer was from A-B to Fort Collins. It was approved with the un- derstanding that it was consistent with the other agreement reached earlier among PRPA the City and Anheuser-Busch. Mike Smith announced that the City of Fort Collins now has all of the A— B water. They turned over 1111 units of CBT water, 490 shares of North Poudre stock, and 5 shares of Water Supply and Storage Co. That meets all of their raw water requirements. Rich Shannon noticed while going through the District budget, that there was about $276,000 identified for the Poudre Project. Mr. Zimbleman said this was designated primarily for environmental work to satisfy the requirements of the FERC license and some hydrologic modeling, so as we go forward, we will know what the benefits and uses of that project are. "You mentioned that is for the FERC permit," Mr. Shannon stated. "Is that still going under the assumption that we are in the pump storage arena?" Mr. Zimbleman said it is more how the Poudre Project is configured and what all the elements are, but the environmental impact in terms of terrestrial biology, aquatic biology, archeology really doesn't make much difference whether there is a pump storage component or not. The area of impact is virtually identical. - ." • Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 3 "As a matter of fact, our contract with the Power Authority, and they are claiming part of those environmental studies, precludes us working much at all with the pump storage part of it." Dr. Evans congratulated the District on their 50th anniversary. "We applaud that along with everyone else." He noted, as an historic fact, that ini- tially Fort Collins said they didn't need CBT water because they had the water from the Poudre River. Events have proved that to be incorrect and we are delighted to have the District and CBT water available, he added. Westminster Water Acquisition Plans Chairman Evans introduced Ron Hellbusch, the Director of Public Works/Utilities for the City of Westminster. Mr. Hellbusch thanked the Water Board for allowing him the time to make a presentation. He and Mike Smith met in August and at that time, he advised Mr. Smith that it was Westmin- ster's desire to share their ideas for water acquisition with the communities north of Denver. While their plan is quite conceptual at this point, it is their intent to be very open with Fort Collins and others. Westminster representatives have met a number of times with Larry Simpson and Darell Zimbleman of the NCWCD on their overall needs and about some ideas they have formulated. Today he will share what they have in mind and what stage they are in regarding this effort. At this point Mr. Hellbusch distributed copies of an outline/memo titled, "City of Westminster's Concept for Developing Supplemental Water Supply From Windy Gap Project." (A copy is attached.) Mr. Hellbusch began by saying that Westminster is approaching 70,000 in pop- ulation. Since the 1960's they have had their own independent water supply when the City formed an agreement with the Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. for enlargement of Standley Lake. This provided the City with storage. Water rights were acquired through the years in the system as well as outside the system. The primary supply in addition to the Farmer's stock in Standley is Farmer's Highline Canal Church Ditch. They do have a treated water con- tract with Thornton which came about as an exchange for other water rights purchased by the City of Westminster. They are also part of the Metro -Denver Providers Program and have an No interest and look to that source to provide about 6,000 acre feet. They are in the Williams Fork agreement which would yield about 1,000 a.f. based on current estimates. There are other options they are pursuing: increasing storage capacity of Standley Lake is one, and they continue to buy water rights in that area. But, as they grow, they know they are going to need additional supplies. Westminster is somewhat unique in that the area inside the current city boundaries is essentially only about half developed. If they don't annex any more land at anytime in the future, they could nearly double the population just by in -fill. "It puts an obliga- tion on our part to make sure that Utility facilities are there and certainly water rights," Mr. Hellbusch stressed. One idea that Westminster came up with which was discussed with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Zimbleman and others at the District and of course Boulder and Long- mont, was the possibility of acquiring, in some fashion, first use or second use of water in the Windy Gap Project. "I want to say from the outset that the discussions with Boulder and Longmont, although they have been going on for sometime, are somewhat conceptual in nature." Basically what is involved Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 4 at this point is a lot of study, consideration and evaluations. He assured the Board that there are no commitments whatsoever by those two cities, but they didn't have any objections to discussing it, and updating Fort Collins and others. "Our purpose is to be open about it so you know actually and factually when you hear and read about Westminster's view north, that it is, we think honorable and hopefully has some mutual benefits." Westminster is talking with Longmont and Boulder regarding exchange use of their Windy Gap or direct use. Boulder and Longmont have some considerations they are working through --charter constraints perhaps on the sale of water; a vote of the people; council actions, that kind of thing. Westminster has done some initial studies jointly with those two cities, and the studies have been shared with the Northern District. There needs to be an integration of the northern water supply water rights as well as the junior rights attached to Windy Gap, but that is possible from an operational point of view --"not only what we might get involved with, but you and everyone else here. We think that has merit," he added. Westminster needs a minimum amount of water to make the deal cost effective, and that is why they have targeted about 8,000 acre feet of water. What they envision doing is taking the water from Carter Lake as one approach and that means a rather long and costly pipeline. It also involves treatment facilities on the very north edge of Westminster. As you come into Denver from the north on I-25, Westminster has extended their city limits to about 152nd Ave. The concept discussed above is before Boulder and Longmont at this point. No conclusions have been reached. The parties involved hope to meet in another 30 days or so, and begin to wade through each of these issues. They hope to put together some kind of firmer program by next year. The water supply Westminster has now, they are comfortable with until about 1992-1995, but it takes quite a long time to get a program implemented. The items in the Windy Gap Acquisition Concept follow: * Westminster would purchase 4,000 AF (40 units) Windy Gap Project water each from Boulder and Longmont. * Either City could substitute the 4,000 AF in Windy Gap units for municipal return flows. * If return flows are substituted, Boulder and Longmont would have to perfect exchanges with agricultural users of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water. * Westminster would pay agreed amount for the water supply itself and share in sub -district assessments, pumping, and associated costs. * Westminster would utilize and take the Windy Gap raw water from storage in Carter Lake through the Carter Lake outlet works by pipeline to Westminster's water treatment plant. Westminster could joint venture construction of portions of the pipeline with Boulder and/or Longmont. Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 5 * Westminster would require that agreement has been reached by the Northern District, the United States and all participants that the Windy Gap and CBT projects would be operated as a unified system to assure firmness of yield. * Westminster must secure a minimum supply of at least 8,000 AF (80 units Windy Gap) before committing to the project. * Westminster would anticipate annexation to the Northern District as well as the municipal sub -district under fair and equitable taxation and financial considerations. Westminster would agree to not purchase CBT units for an agreed period of years. * Westminster would be open to acquiring Windy Gap units from other participants, or consider cooperative joint projects that could benefit both parties. * Fair and equitable representation of Westminster on the Northern and municipal sub -district boards is important to Westminster. Mr. Hellbusch said he would answer questions on the concept in a somewhat general way because they haven't gone too for beyond the conceptual stage. Norm Evans brought up Mr. Hellbusch's comment about the integration of the Windy Gap and the District operation. That is a subject that has come up a number of times. "What is your impression of what that means?" Mr. Hell- busch replied that they are certain it must have come up in the District before. "Our concerns would be more specific than some other concerns. If we were to utilize just Windy Gap water, obviously the yield is very ques- tionable in dry years and would not give us what we would need as a reliable source of water," he continued. The very early conclusions are that by integrating Windy Gap and District operations, they would have greater reliance on the water supply that would be acquired from Boulder and Long- mont, since that source would be supplied by Northern District water rights as well as Windy Gap. He added that "this would not be a supplemental, con- tingent supply. Whatever we would receive in this quantity, must be some- thing we could depend on." Jim Kuiken said he was interested in the opening paragraph of background information where the 6,000 AF in Two Forks is mentioned. If Two Forks is delayed, how will that affect this program; will it speed it up? Mr. Hell- busch responded: "Like most of the subscribers there, we have a concern about timing. We take the position that we need to move ahead with something more diligently in a shorter time frame, than the Denver Program." The emphasis is on the Windy Gap project at this point. John Scott commented that "it takes courage being from a suburb of Denver, to come before the Fort Collins Water Board. If your only intention is getting Windy Gap water by contract perhaps, why are you seeking a change to the Northern District boundary and not just the municipal boundary?" Mr. Hell- busch replied that their real objective is to have some policy making role, influence or representation through the Northern Board. There may be other ways of doing that, but this is just the simplest thing to put down. "We know Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 6 that there can be some resistance to that by the Northern District itself." There are substantial dollars involved and significant reliance on the supply for growth, he stressed. "Because of that, we would like to have at least a minimal role in the policies and regulations." Mr. Scott asked if they would see the contract being just for Windy Gap water or just water from the Northern District. Mr. Hellbusch replied that they see the contract being with the two cities "and we haven't cleared that hurdle yet." Darell Zimbleman explained that the difficulty is that the Dis- trict water can not be used directly or indirectly outside the District boundaries. Directly is fairly easy to understand. He illustrated the indi- rect use with the following example: There was proposed development on North St. Vrain. The only way they could get water to that project was to take water out of the North St. Vrain from which there was not any water avail- able. What they had proposed to do was buy CBT water and take water upstream of Lyons out of priority, and replace that with CBT water. There are some problems associated with that. The obvious solution is change the District boundaries. Then the problem is which boundaries do you change --District or sub -district? If you only change sub -district boundaries, you run into requirements in the Conservancy District Act that says the sub -district board must be the same board as the District. "Everything Ron Hellbusch says is true. There are some hurdles that have to be dealt with." On the other hand, when Estes Park was trying to sell their Windy Gap water, the District Board agreed to entertain the possibility of extending the sub -district boundaries to the south. The District Board has never made indications of that. Mr. Hellbusch said it was their impression that there would be a willingness to extend the municipal sub -district. There is another concept that was brought up in discussions with the District and that is a new Northern Metro District which would be a way to connect with the District. "If you would put yourselves in our place, you can see why we would want some kind of direct role in policy matters, he emphasized. "I didn't mention Estes Park, but they were the first community we talked to after talking with the Northern staff, because of their desire to sell their Windy Gap water these past couple of years. We were still negotiating. The only reason we didn't put together a deal with them was it represented a small portion of what we need to make it cost effective." Westminster needs about 8,000 AF to make the dollars feasible. In the meantime MDC made a proposal to Estes Park. Mr. Zimbleman added that the advantage MDC has is that they are in Boulder County. He also said that he congratulates Westminster for being open and straight -forward in contrast to Thornton. "For the record, Mr. Hellbusch assured the Board, "we don't have a tie or interest in or any arrangements with Thornton on their Northern Project. We have to admit that they came to us early on. We do a lot of things with Thornton and we make no judgement on their program." Tom Sanders asked why Westminster didn't agree to buy in on Thornton's plan. Mr. Hellbusch replied that they felt it was an extremely complicated project that probably would not deliver wet water in the time frame that they needed it. "It it very imaginative, etc., but Thornton doesn't need their next increment of water as soon as we do." He emphasized Westminster's position Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 7 by saying, "you should understand that we have never stopped acquiring water in the neighborhood." Rich Shannon asked the length of the pipeline they are talking about. Mr. Hellbusch brought a map which indicated where the pipeline would be. He said the pipeline would probably be about 30 miles long. Dave Stewart asked if that was easier than using the canal system and pumping from Boulder. "We do need storage in terms of the overall concept," he replied. We don't see trying to get this water in Standley Lake, for example. Storage is an inte- gral part of whatever we put together so we look at Carter as the best in an existing facility." Also being able to take it at anytime, winter or summer, is an advantage. Mr. Stewart commented: "Since there are rumblings that Superior and Louis- ville in that area are expanding also, and really don't have the water; are they looking at this as a possibility for them?" "We have not talked to them, nor has Boulder and Longmont, but as we talked with Larry Simpson and Darell Zimbleman, they indicated that some of those cities are in need of supplies, so there is a possibility of a joint venture on a pipeline, etc., but we have not talked," he stressed. "You will share the cost with Boulder and Longmont presumably," Mr. Shannon asked. Mr. Hellbusch said Westminster has stated if they have a need for that kind of a joint facility they would consider it jointly. Mr. Zimbleman said that Longmont is close to needing some winter water deliverance that the District can't meet because "we don't operate that canal in the winter. If something like this doesn't come along, we are going to have to work with Longmont to figure something out." Mr. Hellbusch added that both communities have talked about sharing in the pipeline. "We are open to that." Dr. Sanders asked what size pipeline they envision. Mr. Hellbusch said it depends on if they go alone or with others. Mike Smith was confused about the integrated operation with CBT/Windy Gap. It appears if you enhance Windy Gap, somehow you are going to detract from CBT, he said. He asked Mr. Zimbleman or Mr. Bigham to explain how you do one without the other. Mr. Zimbleman said he thinks what Mr. Hellbusch was ref- erring to were the studies that Boulder and Longmont commissioned by WBLA. "We have talked about that with the Windy Gap Project." Basically that study says you must have an integrated operation (or unified operation) of CBT and Windy Gap. He believes "that is what we've talked about all along." Windy Gap was never meant to be operated by itself. It was always intended to be operated in conjunction with CBT. It needs some CBT facilities, for example, for carryover storage. "We have not yet nailed down all the issues that relates to," he admitted. "Conceptually, it is nothing we haven't talked about in terms of Windy Gap all along," he reiterated. About two months ago, following the issuance of the WBLA report, both Boards passed a resolution saying, as a concept, they agree that the project was intended to be operated as an integrated unit. Mr. Smith said he still doesn't understand why if you enhance something you are not going to detract from the other. Mr. Zimbleman replied, very basically CBT was designed for a 310,000 AF project. The yield has been 70% of that; 30% of the project is left unused because the hydrology Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 8 is such that the yield, on an average, has not been 310,000 AF with CBT. Windy Gap was designed to use that unused capacity in the CBT system. "It was designed initially to do that?" Mr. Smith asked. "Yes, that's why they got the 310,000 units of CBT." Mr. Smith said he was always told by the Dis- trict staff, if it comes down to a drought condition, CBT had first priority in the system." "You are asking me a different question," Mr. Zimbleman replied. Undoubtedly CBT and its water users have priority --that's clearly spelled out in the carriage contract. If it is in a drought situation, as you suggest, that is when CBT has storage capacity available. You pump 0 some years and 90,000 others so you can get an average of 48,000. That is also why we need to look at a Poudre project to enhance the overall management of both projects, he added. Incidentally, that is why there was a Jasper Reser- voir proposed in connection with Windy Gap. Norm Evans commented if Windy Gap and the Fraser River depended upon itself over the long haul, and you could use the storage to deliver 48 on the aver- age annually, and some years 90, then the operation would be simply Windy Gap standing on its own with the storage capacity space in Granby, etc. However, that doesn't quite match what Mr. Hellbusch has suggested that it increases the reliability if they were integrated. Mr. Zimbleman said the Windy Gap Committee spent some time last month talking about what an integrated operation really means. It means different things to different people. Until we know better what demands are with Windy Gap water, we really can't answer some of the day to day operational problems. He commented that one of the advantages of the District taking over the entire CBT project ideally, is that it will help them to do a better job of integrating. Dr. Evans stated for the record that Windy Gap was a part of the Six Cities group of which he was a member, long before a sub -district was ever thought of. They had negotiated with the Bureau for space and conveyance totally secondary to CBT and unrelated to CBT other than common use of facilities for which the Windy Gap project would pay. We even tried to get them to give us some of the power production but they wouldn't talk about that. Before the whole think matured into a sub -district, and there was any relation to the CBT, there was a Windy Gap project that envisioned using facilities of the CBT, but not being a part of it. "I mention that as part of the historic past," Dr. Evans concluded. Tom Moore commented that in an agreement both sides need to benefit. "Obviously if I was a Denver suburb, I would love to tap into CBT--there is a tremendous benefit." What benefits are you bringing to Northern Colorado? Mr. Hellbusch replied that Boulder and Longmont see some benefits. They see perhaps excess water for their overall needs. We haven't thought in terms of the large scope of the benefits to the whole Northern District. Mr. Moore asked what Westminster is prepared to offer in terms of price. Mr. Hellbusch said that there has been a large investment made into those facili- ties by the people of Northern Colorado, and Westminster intends to pay what is equitable and fair. Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 9 Rich Shannon asked Darell Zimbleman how the decision is made to expand the sub -district boundary. Mr. Zimbleman said each Board has the discretion to do that. Mr. Shannon clarified that each Board is the same people. Is a citizen referendum possible in this instance? Mr. Shannon explained further. "If the Board decided to expand the parent District and the citizens of the District said they didn't like that, can they force an election on that issue?" Mr. Zimbleman replied "not on that issue, as far as I know." He added that he believes it has to be approved by the presiding judge as well. On the other hand, in the past, the Board has not done things that their con- stituents have objected to. Mr. Hellbusch admitted that there are some key questions being raised that there aren't answers for now. That is why so much work must be done, and why we have not drawn conclusions. He joked that he is not uncomfortable appear- ing "up north" alone. "There are nice people up here." The only thing he asks is not to make judgements "on what you feel very strongly about and that you see as negative from your perspective at this point." We know there must be some kind of mutual benefit or at least lack of harm to the parties involved. "I wouldn't be here today if we weren't aware of that," he assured. Dr. Evans said, "we very much appreciate that and understand." You know where the pitfalls are and what our natural inclinations would be." We appreciate your coming and giving us this information and having a chance to meet directly and personally with you. That's always a plus." Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode referred to the graph distributed with the packets. During August we had a peak day of 51.6 mgd., he related. The average was about 37 mgd. The use was approximately 9% above average. For the year, we are about 11% above what we projected as average use. Much of that has been the result of a drier and hotter than average July and August, he explained. In July we had a new max day of 54.9 mgd.; that compared with 49 mgd. the year before. Jim Kuiken asked if the quality of the water suffered during that period. Ben Alexander responded that it did not. John Scott asked how much was brought across from the Michigan Ditch this year. Mr. Alexander said right at 2,000 AF. "Isn't that a little low," Dr. Sanders asked. Mr. Alexander replied that since the City has had the Michigan Ditch, we haven't brought over more than 3500 AF. We were shut down for a time because there wasn't any place for the water. Mr. Smith explained that it was a pretty dry year up there. In a wet year, with the system the way it is designed now, we can probably bring over 3500-4000 AF at least. MaryLou Smith referred to an article from "Pipelines," the Water & Wastewater Utility newsletter. She was impressed by the image of all the extra work by the employees who had to deliver that much water during those very stressful days. "Most of us don't think of people working with water like employees in a factory who work under pressure and deadline. Of course those people were having to work extra hard to produce more than was typical, and I have a greater appreciation for what those people did," she stressed. In order to Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 10 recognize their efforts, Ms. Smith moved that a resolution of appreciation be given to those employees for their extra effort under stressful conditions. After Dave Stewart's second the motion was passed unanimously and with enthu- siasm. President Evans added, "Ben Alexander, we mean it from the heart and we thank you!" Water Board/Staff Workshop Molly Nortier sent notices to members which stated that the meeting will be on October 14, and will begin at 1:00 p.m. It will be held at the University Park Holiday Inn in the Montana State Room. There will be a break for din- ner at 6:00, with a wrap-up following. Dr. Carl Neu will be the facilitator. Marylou Smith believes this workshop will be an appropriate time for addres- sing the bylaws. She will have a draft of the bylaws for members and staff prior to the meeting. The bylaws, she stressed, are a guideline by which the Board operates. Tom Sanders believes that the relationship between Board and staff needs to be addressed again. Rich Shannon wanted to follow up on what the agenda should be so "we don't all come with different expectations." Typically these types of meetings can cover a variety of things, but certainly roles in terms of staff/Board rela- tionships; sometimes the role of the chair and the review and/or creation of goals for the Board, are also a part of that. "Is that a complete list? Dr. Evans agreed with that kind of an agenda. Should we be instructing Dr. Neu to take us from scratch on the goals, Mr. Shannon asked. Dr. Evans would not have any objection on a short section for goal development. Last time we had a strong session on setting objectives. Our policy statement is a result of that, he said. Dave Stewart hopes that we can do something that is more productive in terms of what we are trying to do. Mr. Shannon acknowledged that we do have policies. What are the tangibles to accomplish in the next 12-24 months that are in support of those polices? We just completed the Water Supply Policy. We have policies about how we deal with development. How are we going to get there? MaryLou Smith wants to look at the policies and goals we most recently came up with and see if we still agree with these. There are some policies, she believes, that the Board has approved but are not included in our policy statement. Mr. Shannon tried to define how the members want to use the workshop time. Part of the meeting will be a review and a chance to clarify existing policies, rather than trying to create policy, he proposed. The second part of the meeting would address what the Board wants to accomplish in the next 12-14 months? Is that a fair statement? There was general agreement to this approach. The secretary will send out the Water Board policy statement prior to the work- shop. Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 11 EPA Excellence Award Mike Smith announced that the EPA notified the Utility that the City will receive an excellence award for operation and maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Plant No 2. Water Board members are invited to attend the Council work session on Tuesday, September 22 at 6:00 when the regional EPA Adminis- trator for Region 8 will present the award to the City. Also on that day employees of the Wastewater Treatment Division will be honored at a luncheon and award ceremony at the University Park Holiday Inn. "We are going to try to get a lot of mileage out of this," Rich Shannon stressed. You may have read something in the newspapers about the City's values statement, etc., which is really trying to emphasize the importance of basic services in the community. An award like this could go unnoticed unless we try to give it some extra notoriety, he concluded. The Water Board extended their congratu- lations. Dr. Evans encouraged Board members to attend the award ceremony on Tuesday. Minutes Jim Kuiken referred to pages 4 and 5 where three changes were made. Norm Evans also had changes in his statement on pages 11 and 12. Ray Herrmann sent in two additions to his statement on p. 11 since he was unable to attend today's meeting. All of these revisions will be corrected in the original minutes and will be sent out to the City Council, Water Board and others as revised. Tom Sanders referred to point 4 of his written comments. He thought he had stated the per capita consumption of 187 gpcd for Fort Collins in his oral remarks at the meeting. He also thought he had mentioned the national average might be 20 gallons less than that. He wanted to make the point that it isn't worth it to spend all that money to save 20 gallons per day. Dennis Bode explained that the City's water use is higher than the 187 figure. On the average, it is more like 210-215 gpcd and that is just for treated water. That does not include raw water that is used for parks, golf courses, etc., he added. That figure may have been confused with the figure for a water district which was used in a comparison chart several years ago, Dave Stewart pointed out. Molly Nortier clarified that she included in the minutes only the remarks that were made in addition to the written statements submitted by Board members. In Dr. Sander's case, the figures were included in his written statement, and the additional statement about spending all that money to save 20 gallons of water a day, was part of his oral remarks. How much raw water do we use per year, Mary Lou Smith asked. It is difficult to measure it exactly, but we believe it is roughly 10% of treated water use, Dennis Bode replied. This year when we are using about 25,000 AF of treated water, Mr. Bode would guess that we are using about 2500 AF of raw water on parks, etc. He stressed that this figure isn't average since this has been a dry year. Dennis Bode went on with the discussion of the minutes. He said in terms of just the mechanics of the minutes, there are many small changes here. What are your expectations as far as changing the minutes? Our normal practice is to note those changes in the current minutes. Norm Evans asked, in this case, that we make those changes in the text and rerun the minutes. We wouldn't do that often, but this is a special case. Mr. Bode explained that the minutes were sent out ahead of this meeting because we always correct Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 12 them the following time. Dr. Evans doesn't think that is a very good prac- tice. It hardly makes it worthwhile to make corrections, he contends. After further discussion, it was decided that the minutes of August 21, 1987, which contained the statements of the Water Board members on the metering issue, will be sent to the City Council revised, which means all of the changes and additions will be made in the original text. As a general prac- tice, however, unless other unusual circumstances arise, corrections of the minutes will be included in the next meeting's minutes as has been the prac- tice. Tom Moore moved the approval of the minutes as corrected. Following a second from Jim Kuiken, the vote to accept the motion was unanimous. Chairman Evans stated that there was a motion from the last meeting to con- sider the full text of discussion on the metering issue at the July meeting. The expanded text was sent to members for their perusal. Dr. Evans believes it should be added to the minutes. However, because of the clear statements from last month's meeting, he is open to a decision either way. MaryLou Smith believes, given the well organized clear state- ments from the August meeting, that the expanded text be kept by Water Board members only and not be distributed in the usual manner. It will be confus- ing to all those who receive them why they are getting them, she explained. Tom Moore moved that the longer version be added to the July minutes. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. Dr. Sanders feels strongly that this version should be included because that discussion precipitated the more reasonable approach for last month's meeting. A vote approved the motion 6 to 1. Mary - Lou Smith cast the negative vote. Other Business Tom Moore was disturbed that Westminster has been able to go as far as they have with their proposal. He was surprised that the District staff allowed it to proceed this far. He firmly believes there should be a reso- lution of some sort stating that the Water Board feels strongly about the CBT boundaries. To even consider a change and negotiate to this point is not in the best interests of Northern Colorado, he asserted. "I look to CBT as being a last line of defense here and the only political entity that can pro- tect the water." For Westminster to ever become a member of CBT is not acceptable. Dave Stewart asked, if they became a member of the sub -district, do you have a problem with that? Tom Moore admitted that the sub -district is a different thing. Cities are already trying to bail out of their financial problems by selling water to other places. That's something that has already happened. In essence, Ron Hellbusch is saying that they want to become a member of the full District because they don't want the junior water rights. Mr. Moore contends that their intent is to come in under the Windy Gap sub- district, become a full member and buy CBT water. Dave Stewart commented that he believes the only way you could actually get them to do that would be if they want to either enhance the system so that the impact to the system is unnoticeable, which would be a very difficult thing to do. "If they were able to do that, then I would say expanding that Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 13 boundary would not be a bad thing; but if they aren't able to develop that water without impacting the existing system as it is today, then I would agree with you." Mr. Moore agreed if they could bring enough to the system, it would be a good deal. The only way they can bring enough to make this a good deal to CBT is to build the Poudre Project which is a greater impact on this area than any- thing else. Frankly Mr. Moore believes that Boulder and Longmont selling that water "is crazy." He would have hoped that the District would have "looked out for us better than that." "I want the City Council to look at it very closely," he stressed, "and if they feel the same way, I hope they will send a very strong notice to the District Board. Tom Sanders thinks the Board should be a little more discrete, but he agrees with Mr. Moore in that he is worried about the physical connection in terms of the diameter of that pipeline. If it could be made a 12" diameter to meet their needs, he would feel more comfortable. Mr. Moore added,"it is the political connection, no matter how small the pipe." When that connection is made, "we're out." There are more congress members, etc. in the metro area. The pressure will come! Why don't we buy options on this water, Dr. Sanders suggested, "and we become the water broker for this area." Mr. Moore responded that financially that isn't a very good deal. Jim Kuiken said, "why don't we sell it to them treated and turn it into gold." Mr. Kuiken added. "We had how many meetings with the District and the full impact of this was not made clear to us until Westminster came." Mr. Moore said he heard that Westminster was hoping to become a part of this and the District staff denied that. Norm Evans commented that it is quite true that CBT runs with the idea that there will be some dry years and that the storage capacity is carryover for dry years for the CBT system. That is why the quota system is used. If there is another Windy Gap plan to come in and stabilize the Windy Gap supply and make that more reliable, it might be at the expense of some storage capacity for dry years carryover. That would have to be carefully analyzed. That's one of the hazards that Mr. Moore is talking about. Dr. Sanders reiterated: "What you are saying is that there are several ways to stop it. We can buy and control water or we make it politically tougher to get water from us than from the Two Forks Project. They must be thinking it is easier to come up here to get water." Mr. Moore added, "and we aren't even making it hard for them." "I don't think we are saying come on in and turn on the tap," Mary Lou Smith stressed. "I think that we are being very polite and listening, but I think it is very obvious that we aren't happy about it." She also thinks Darell Zimbleman was just being polite. Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 14 Tom Moore contends that it is time not to be polite. Ms. Smith said, "I want to be polite because I want to encourage their coming directly to us instead of coming under the table. If those who come above- board are just slapped in the face, that will encourage others to go under the table." Mike Smith provided further information about the situation. Their legal coun- sel is John Carlson. We had talked with him many times. In our conversa- tions with Mr. Carlson, we talked about our displeasure with what happened with Thornton. John Carlson has probably advised Westminster to make an effort to talk to us. John Scott thinks it is time we speak up and say we don't like them coming up here. Maybe a good way to do it is by having the Council prepare some kind of resolution that says they are opposed to any changes in the Northern Colorado District parent boundaries. "Financially we can't stop Boulder or Longmont from selling them water. If it was so good, we would be out there buying it instead of Westminster. If you stop the change of the District boundaries, but not the sub -district, then you stop CBT from leaving the area. They can't mix the waters. They can operate them integrated, but there are storage rights they can't violate." Dave Stewart thinks that undoubtedly we are going to see Windy Gap going to Metro -Denver. "I can't see how you can stop it. Estes Park is a good example. They can't afford the assessment. They are paying for water they don't even get!" Dr. Sanders said his philosophy is if we have to compete with them eventu- ally, why don't we do it now? Mike Smith said the District won't allow us to buy any more than a certain percentage of what we use of CBT water. "Then why don't we help out Estes Park," Dr. Sanders asked. Mr. Moore replied that Windy Gap water is just too expensive. Jim Kuiken said he is just as irate about the situation as Tom Moore is. He thinks we must stop looking towards the City Council to take a vote and that's as far as it goes. If you look at history of water in the west, the people in the Arkansas Valley were not pleased and their City Councils voted against it but it didn't do a bit of good. Look at California as another good example. "We must have a plan and talk about it --perhaps a water authority, maybe buying water, but, he stressed, we must have a plan and we must do something. We can't expect votes of the City Council to change things. The votes, the people, the money, the influence, etc. are all in the metro area and the water is here." We do have the CBT which is a tremendous legal entity, Tom Moore insists, but we must let them know what we want. He moved that this issue be presented to the City Council and tell them that a resolution would be appropriate. Jim Kuiken commented that he thinks the expertise of the City Council in this area would generate a "knee jerk" reaction. "We would be far better off to come up with a recommendation and sending that to the Council," he contends. John Scott believes it is worth being on record through the Council that they 0 Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 15 oppose any changes in the District boundaries because we don't want to lose any of the CBT water out of the District. Norm Evans believes that we can combine both tactics; along with a Council resolution, we need to get ourselves positioned with some kind of strategy that we could begin working on. Dr. Sanders agrees. The Thornton situation disturbed the Council and they began buying water as a result. Now we have two fronts coming at us and it is time for a strategy plan and action. "Let's start controlling our own destiny-- and not just by working through the courts," he insisted. Norm Evans suggested a committee to begin working on this strategy. We could use the existing committee that worked on the water policies. We could appoint a new committee or be a committee of the whole during our October 14 workshop. Dave Stewart asked Attorney Paul Eckman if the boundary issue can go to a vote of the people of the District. Darell Zimbleman said it couldn't. Could you find out about that? Mr. Eckman said he would research that sta- tute and let the Board know. Tom Moore said he can't believe that the NCWCD Board would vote on something like this if they didn't think it was the will of the people. Jim Kuiken contends that the staff of the District isn't being fully up front with that Board. Rich Shannon asked if at the October 14 workshop, this would fall under goals and is something the Board wants to accomplish within the next 12 to 24 months. Is this item too big to take into our goal -setting or is it just the thing you want to take into your goal setting retreat? Dr. Sanders said it is a good example of what we want as a goal. We can list objectives and decide how to accomplish them. Jim Kuiken stressed that the Board doesn't have a more important goal. Mr. Shannon said as we look at blocks of time for the workshop, we might try to structure the Bylaws and policies as possi- bly a half hour each, and perhaps a couple of hours for these major goals. This appeared to be acceptable to the Board. Rich Shannon claims that what is happening in other parts of the country, as Jim Kuiken pointed out, is true and inevitable. The question is not how to stop them but how do we get a plum out of this. So it is getting on the table what it is we think they have to bring to the table before we are friendly. We can't buy all the water; we can't even buy enough to make a difference. Dr. Evans agreed that the point Mr. Shannon makes is good. He would say our tactic should be to develop the defensive strategy which might be somewhat offensive, but in the sense of taking initiatives etc. Mr. Shannon's idea is important in addition. We can agree to provide a block of time on the 14th to come up with some strategies. Marylou Smith says that addresses the issue of looking at our long range strategy and action about dealing with it, but she thinks Tom Moore's idea Water Board Minutes September 18, 1987 Page 16 that we ask Council to take a stand on the District boundaries may be a good one. Chairman Evans proposed that the Board do both. Ms. Smith proposed a statement to the Council as follows: The City of West- minster recently presented to the Water Board its preliminary plans which are explained in the attached memorandum. The Water Board expressed to Westmin- ster their appreciation of their forthright approach in apprising us of their plans. However, the Water Board is opposed to any extension of the District boundaries. We recommend that City Council go on record as opposing such an extension, or something like that, she added. Also the City Council should express to the District that the City of Fort Collins opposes such an exten- sion. Tom Moore agreed strongly with that approach and with Ms. Smith's language. Dr. Sanders asked what we gain from it. Dave Stewart replied that you put the District staff on notice that we aren't going to sit by and watch the District boundaries change. Norm Evans said, "I think we all agree that the fact the District staff has proceeded this far, is a little shocking." "Of course they are being pushed by their mem- bers from Boulder and Longmont," Tom Moore reminded the Board. Tom Moore agreed to use MaryLou Smith's proposal as his motion. Marylou Smith seconded the motion. Rich Shannon asked, "is the motion dealing with the parent District boundaries? Dave Stewart contends that we are fooling ourselves if we don't think the sub -district is going to change boundaries. Be realistic, he said. "I don't think we are opposed to people who have Windy Gap water getting it off their books because they can't afford it." He defi- nitely believes that parent District boundaries should not change, however. Tom Moore agreed to add parent District boundaries to his motion. We can expand it as we feel it is necessary, he said. The second agreed to the change. MaryLou Smith believes that perhaps we should talk about forming a larger group that would have the capital to buy that water and make certain it doesn't leave the District. That we can discuss in strategy sessions. A vote was taken on the motion. Jim Kuiken voted no and Tom Sanders abstained. The motion passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention. Tom Sanders said he would like to stress in the letter to the Council that we do appreciate Mr. Hellbusch coming up and being straightforward and hon- est. He was assured that it would be included. Mr. Kuiken doesn't think the Board has "their act together yet," and he believes this communication will pass more confusion on to the Council at this point. Therefore, he felt compelled to vote no. Water Board Minutes• • September 18, 1987 Page 17 Rich Shannon announced that on October 13, the Water Board will have another opportunity to participate in a water metering discussion work session with the City Council. It should begin at about 6:00. It was suggested that since the Board will be meeting Tuesday with the Coun- cil, Wednesday at the workshop and also have a regular Board meeting on Fri- day, that perhaps the Board meeting should be cancelled. Mike Smith said there might be some water acquisition opportunity decisions to discuss. The Board concluded, therefore, that a decision would be made about holding the meeting at the time of the workshop on Wednesday. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Water Board Secretary ,Mt51 MINS I r�I O� � _ o yam•. or 'Alb CITY OF WESTMINSTER'S CONCEPT FOR DEVELOPING SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY FROM WINDY GAP PROJECT Department of Public Works The City of Westminster has a population of approximately 65,000, with an additional 10,0000 persons provided water service outside of the City limits. Westminster encompasses over 26 square miles of which approximately 50 percent Is developed. Present water use is 15,000 AF per year. Projected water demand at bulld-out of the existing City limits Is approximately 38,000 AF. The firm annual yield of Westminster's existing water supply system Is 21.000 AF of which approximately 70 percent derives from Clear Creek. The other 30 percent comes from a perpetual treated water contract with the City of Thornton and a raw water delivery contract with the Denver Water Board. Westminster existing water supply Is anticipated to last until the mid-199O's. An additional 17,000 AF must be acquired to provide adequate water supply to meet future demands within the existing City limits. The City presently has an 8 percent Interest in the Metro Water Provider's share of the Denver Metropolitan Water Development Agreement. This 8 percent share of the Two Forks Project would yield approximately 6,000 AF. WINDY GAP AGO I I S I T I ON rnigc5pT . * Westminster would purchase 4,000 AF (40 units) Windy Gap Project water each from Boulder and Longmont. * Either City could substitute the 4,000 AF in Windy Gap units for municipal return flows. * If return flows are substituted, Boulder and Longmont would have to perfect exchanges with agricultural users of Colorado Big Thompson (CST) water. * Westminster would pay agreed amount for the water supply Itself and share In sub -district assessments, pumping, and associated costs. 3031 West Seventy Sixth Avenue 0 80030 • (303) 429-1546 Page 2 * Westminster would utilize and take the Windy Gap raw water from storage In Carter Lake through the Carter Lake outlet works by pipeline to Westminster's water treatment plant. Westminster could Joint venture construction of portions of the pipeline with Boulder and/or Longmont. * Westminster would require that agreement has been reached by the Northern District, the United States and all participants that the Windy Gap and CBT projects would be operated as a unified system to assure firmness of yield. * Westminster must secure a minimum supply of at least 8,000 AF (80 units Windy Gap) before committing to the project. * Westminster would anticipate annexation to the Northern District as well as the municipal sub -district under fair and equitable taxation and financial considerations. Westminster would agree to not purchase CBT units for an agreed period of years. * Westminster would be open to acquiring Windy Gap units from other participants, or consider cooperative joint projects that could benefit both parties. * Fair and equitable representation of Westminster on the Northern and municipal sub -district boards Is Important to Westminster. &4CW&4,Wk, Ron Helibusch, Director of Public Works/Utilities 9/9/87