Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/20/1987MINUTES Water Board March 20, 1987 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, John Scott, Stan Ponce, Ray Herrmann, Tom Sanders, MaryLou Smith, Jo Boyd (alt.) Staff Present Mike Smith, Keith Elmund, Gale McGaha-Miller, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests Larry Simpson, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Manager John Moore and Nancy Gray, NCWCD Board Members Lowell Abrahamson, Interested citizen Members Absent Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Jim Kuiken (alt.) President Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of February 20, 1987 were approved as distributed. President Evans welcomed the quests from the Northern Colorado Water Conser- vancy District (NCWCD): Larry Simpson, District Manager, John Moore and Nancy Gray, members of the Board of Directors. Dr. Evans emphasized the importance of the District in terms of the water supply for the area. For this reason, the Fort Collins Water Board has expressed the need for continued cooperation and increased collaboration and communication with the District. Larry Simpson began by saying that he had received a letter from Dr. Evans suggesting the possibility of the Board of Directors of the District meeting jointly with the Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland Water Boards. He also suggested one or two staff members from Boulder since they don't have a water board. What the District does in the next two years will substantially affect the water supplies of the cities, he stressed. Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 2 The first issue he addressed was what the District plans to do with the southern boundary. It is Mr. Simpson's opinion that, at this point, the current Board of Directors will continue to hold their stance regarding the southern boundary with regard to CBT units. He doesn't envision the Board opening the CBT project up for the markets of the northern tier cities. Obviously boards change and policy changes, but at this point, he assured the Water Board, they have a very firm policy on the southern boundary. There might be a possibility if a northern tier sub -district were formed, that they would work towards providing a water supply for the "Thorntons" and others in that area to prevent them from trying to dry up the farm lands, he speculated. He believes, however, that the CBT project would not be part of that as a permanent supply. One possibility might be the extension in a period of major drought of such a sub -district being able to rent water on an annual basis during the drought on a year by year contingency. The Board has a policy which would allow the purchase of Windy Gap water from its participants at least north of the Boulder County line, the extension of the Municipal sub -district boundary to a point below that line. The Board made the decision that the cities should be allowed to market their water as they choose, because that water was developed and paid for by those cities rather than the taxpayers of northern Colorado. Mr. Simpson would like to hear from city water boards as to their positions on this issue. Dr. Evans related that the Fort Collins Board had discussed this with the con- cern that a move like this would open competition. Mr. Simpson emphasized that the philosophy of the Board for the last 15-16 years of his tenure has been that the project was built for northern Colorado, and as such, is a reserve supply for both municipal and industrial use and for the agricultural base of the area. Nancy Gray commented that the Northern Board worked very closely with Fort Collins in terms of making it difficult for the City of Thornton. "That con- tinues to be our stand," she stressed. "How did this rumor about the southern boundary get started," she asked. Mr. Simpson guessed that it could have been because of certain Windy Gap cities trying to sell their water to some of the cities to the south. Even with Windy Gap water, it is the Board's policy to sell it only in areas north of the Boulder County line. John Moore commented further that when Thornton purchased water from Water Supply and Storage Co. farmers, some of that included project water. Mr. Simpson related that recently the Board authorized the staff to send the necessary notices of cor- rection on all of the allotment contracts, because all the farms with CBT water that,Thornton purchased are in violation of the Board's rules and regulations. This will have to be modified in some way; either by disposition by Thornton to somewhere else within the District or by municipal type contract for irrigation use on those farms only (an annual renewal contract). If those contracts are not corrected, the District will "notice" it for hearing for removal of the 1100 units of CBT water. There were violations on nearly all those farms which makes District assessments uncollectable. Mike Smith said that the City heard that the effort to market some of the sub- district water by some of the entities has brought that issue to light. One of Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 3 the southern cities wanted to become a member of the District if it purchased Windy Gap water; in that event, the boundaries would have to be moved. Mr. Simpson reiterated that he just doesn't see the current Board doing this, and based on the political structure of northern Colorado he doesn't see that any future Board would. In addition to that, as long as the NCWCD has a con- tract with the U.S. Government for CBT water, any movement of that boundary requires the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Simpson envisioned that the District and Sub -district would be governed by their own boards. Mr. Simpson related that according to the law, that couldn't happen. The law states that the Sub -district must be governed by the same board of directors as the District. Mr. Simpson added that there is representation from the cities by nine members of the Board. Mr. Smith also asked if the Board might be expanded to include area that is not in the District, but may be in the Sub -district. Mr. Simpson responded that there has been some thought that if a north metro type district was ever formed, with the goal of providing a water supply through various exchanges, that a change in the law might provide that area with representation on the Board of Directors. Such representation would be strictly for the business of that particular sub -district, not on the Board of the Northern District. Mr. Smith asked what the legislature could do "to upset the apple cart." Mr. Simpson replied, "obviously we are a creature of the statute, and the state legislature by legislative fiats, could set whatever boundaries they felt they wanted for the District." He is certain, however, that it would create a vicious battle in the state before that could happen. Also, the legislature would be required to get the consent of the Secretary of the Interior to change the boundaries. This stipulation was originally created to prevent erosion of the tax base and also to prevent inordinate shifts of water from one end of the District to the other, and thereby upsetting the power revenues that are used to pay back the project. The U.S. is still going to have a great deal of con- trol over the CBT Project regardless of what happens, he assured the Board. Tom Sanders is concerned that clever manipulation could somehow accomplish their end. "You say this could be done by legislative fiat; this state is run by legislative fiat," he argued. As a City and as a District Dr. Sanders con- tends that we should start preparing for this eventuality. Mr. Simpson assured Dr. Sanders that the District Board is watching that very carefully. He referred to a bill currently in the legislature which says basically that any entity taking water outside the boundaries of any conservancy district must provide such mitigation as necessary to not infringe upon the future use of any water users within that area or increase its cost in any way whatsoever. He thinks there is significant support for this idea but isn't certain how it will fare. Obviously, Colorado Springs, Denver, Thornton, etc. will be opposing that bill so there may be doubt about it passing. John Moore asked, "Isn't Thornton's plan, as originally set forth, to bring some of the water back up here to compensate for the water taken out and thus keep the farms going?" Mr. Simpson responded that the District has had engi- Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 4 neers studying that. In order for Thornton to take the water without injuring others within the basin, which the law says they must do, they would get about half the water that they plan on getting. Also, the studies indicate that the cost of that water will be considerably higher than they anticipated--$10,000 - 11,000 per ac.ft. They must pump against 200 ft. of elevation and 500 ft. of friction. Their energy bill will be very expensive. It appears, from recent conversations with Thornton, that they don't anticipate building that the way they had originally planned. They are already bonded up to the limit just pur- chasing the water. Dr. Evans suggested that one of the alternatives that they would want to inves- tigate (or others) would be some very wide-ranging exchanges. This brings up a question about the four -party agreement which the District recently executed. "Would there be, in your view, some opportunities opening up for exchanges that might shift from the Poudre through exchanges on the Western Slope down into the metro area?" Mr. Simpson answered that there was nothing contemplated in any of the negotiations on that agreement. He doesn't anticipate that it will open up anything like that. He provided some examples that illustrated that. Mary Lou Smith asked if they would still consider the pipeline if others in the metro area went in on the project. It depends a little on what this area decides to do, Mr. Simpson replied. They are looking for ways to exchange the water rather then pumping it. There are so many impediments that Could be used to make it very difficult to build the pipeline. Unless Thornton works out something that isn't going to dry up northern Colorado, they have "a long hard row to hoe," he stressed. "In 15 years in 2002," Jo Boyd asked, "are you going to be able to force them to do an EIS even if politics in Washington don't change between now and then?" Mr. Simpson thinks that if anything, people are going to become more concerned about the impacts that one area has on another area. Dr. Boyd also asked why municipalities have been able to buy water out of the Southeast District. Mr. Simpson replied that, unfortunately, they didn't come to the realization until too late. "As a matter of fact, they are the ones who are sponsoring the legislation I spoke about earlier," he added. Moreover, the water that was purchased was not Federal water, so there was no need for approval from the Department of the Interior, nor did the purchase of the ditch water have to cross Federal facilities as it does here. Dr. Sanders asked if Thornton is just a "sacrificial lamb" for sins of the large municipalities such as Aurora. Mr. Simpson has heard that but doesn't believe it to be the case. Aurora has all of their investments to the south. One of the things that Thornton thought they would get was a flood of cities wanting to get involved and help them build the project which, to this point, hasn't occurred. Dr. Evans suggested that the Board move on to other topics of general interest; one of which is the Glade Reservoir Project. "How do you see the Fort Collins participation and relationship to that," Dr. Evans wanted to know. Larry Simpson said this is a project that not only includes Glade but a diversion dam Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 5 of some kind on the main stem of the Poudre to get the water into Glade. This was a project the NCWCD was asked to pursue by the Cache La Poudre Water Users Ass'n. following the 1977 drought. The project would be beneficial for the area for the following reasons: It would be a major management tool which would allow water to be held above for the municipal/industrial use of the front range. It would also allow storage of additional "spill water" or water that is now spilled from the CBT project and also from the Windy Gap Project -- It would enhance the yield from both of those projects. The project would probably develop from 30,000 to 60,000 a.f. of "new water" depending upon whose hydrology you use. The Board would have to decide how that water would be used, e.g. as a reserve supply for drought situ- ations. He thinks Fort Collins would want to have storage in Glade Reservoir or the main stem as opposed to Rockwell since Rockwell is not going to be as easy to build because of Wild & Scenic designation. Furthermore, as Fort Col- lins moves to the north, there would be an advantage in a treatment plant below the outlet tunnel from Glade Reservoir. He concluded that Fort Collins will probably be involved and have a part in anything that is ever constructed whether the full blown project, assuming that energy markets can be found, or whether it would only be a longer term staged type water resources project. If the market for energy doesn't materialize, the need for the project from a water standpoint remains. Moreover, the recreation bonanza that will result from the project will obviously impact the economy. Greeley and the entire front range will benefit in several ways from the project as well. Norm Evans commented that this type of project seems to depend heavily on the municipal user for financial support. Dr. Evans also referred to the comment that Mr. Simpson made regarding Rock- well which came as a surprise to him. The Board understood that the Rockwell site was protected with regard to the Wild and Scenic designation. Mr. Simpson responded that unfortunately, the main dam site was excluded from exemption by a movement of the boundary extreme. That makes it very difficult to build. It gives you a second best dam site. In addition, while the area of the reservoir and dam itself were set aside, there was no exemption in the language which would prevent the impact of storage on flows in the Wild & Scenic stretch from being used to obstruct the project. It doesn't mean it couldn't be built; it would be very difficult. Gerry Horak, the negotiator from Fort Collins, was advised of this during the process and at that time indicated that it was not an important consideration. Mr. Simpson recalled that he had objected, but he "really didn't have any say in the matter." Mike Smith said that the staff had documented this and informed the City Manager of these concerns. Henry Caulfield made some comments about the costs of financing the Glade pro- ject. "Looked at realistically, in terms of what we have now, the cheapest thing for us to do is to buy more CBT water," he contends. Mr. Simpson said that is correct, but there are some limits to that too. He admitted however, that with the current price of CBT water, the best thing any municipality could do, in his opinion, is to buy as much CBT water as possible, and lease it back for agricultural use until they need it. Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 6 Mr. Caulfield went on to say that there is no reason to believe that agricul- tural interests can pay for any water now or in the future. Mr. Simpson agreed with that observation. Mr. Caulfield continued. "This is a particularly bad year as far as the legislature is concerned to talk about money." He doesn't see the legislature in future years, "in effect, making a non -reimbursable equity contribution to a dam." Mr. Simpson responded that he gets a different sense from the legislature. They have, in a number of instances, said they were willing to do that if they can develop the funding. Mr. Caulfield stated that what we are really talking about with the project is the power which is doubt- ful, and putting the full faith and credit of the City on the line, and a leg- islative non -reimbursable contribution. Also, the price of water is so low now that this project is going to be delayed quite awhile. Mr. Simpson agreed that was a fair statement. Mr. Caulfield said, "The NCWCD has their 1 mill tax and before many years go by, you'll have paid off the CBT loan. "Yes, in the year 2002," Mr. Simpson replied. "That is another source of revenue if that were to be continued," Mr. Caulfield added. "Has there been any thought about that?" Mr. Simpson replied that there really hasn't at this stage because it is frankly still another 15 years before that occurs. Mr. Caulfield thinks the answer, as far as the Water Board is concerned, is, "this is down the road; all kinds of things can change, so we need to keep track of it but not get excited about it. Mr.'Simpson contends that, at this point, the greatest contribution from cities like Fort Collins and Greeley is an open mind to understand the need for this project and the future needs for this region. The District's greatest concern is drought and this project would address that; not a 1930's drought, but a 1950's type drought. From a political standpoint, during a drought, one would find assets distributed in a much different way from the way they are today. One of the District's goals is to bring this pro- ject to a status of study and analysis. Mr. Caulfield said, "as Mr. Simpson is aware, the City did a drought study, so from the City's point of view, we think we are pretty well protected. I think what you have in mind for the 50's drought is for the agricultural area to receive more protection." Mr. Simpson concurred that it was partly that but also the waters that many of the cities think they can depend on, which means they would go out and pay farmers not to farm to get the water back, is not going to be stored at a point where they can use it, he believes. Mr. Caul- field went on to say that the conclusions of the City's drought study were not dependent upon additional storage nor renting from agriculture. Mr. Simpson agreed that although this is not the case with Fort Collins, many cities have placed all of their dependency in that area, and in some instances, it just won't be there. Mr. Simpson is skeptical about our ability to withstand the effects of a severe drought. Dr. Evans agreed that a drought would bring new perspectives on water matters. John Scott asked if the District has any plans to pursue Glade Reservoir if they don't get up -front financing. Mr. Simpson said they would continue to try to find the necessary financing. Mr. Scott asked about bond financing. The District can't back a bond issue without a referendum from the taxpayers, or without take or pay contracts from some revenue source, Mr. Simpson explained. Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Scott also asked if they plan to continue looking at Jasper Reservoir. Mr. Simpson replied that Jasper is basically secured. The parent District owns the right-of-way. The decree is based on the four -party agreement. The District will get the decree for the enlargement. From that point they will maintain diligence on the decree. Jasper is an ace in the hole in case other things don't work out, he concluded. Nancy Gray said that she has received questions from several people in the Fort Collins area about Jasper. The thinking is that besides Glade the District is actively pursuing the development of Jasper. Mr. Simpson surmises that this thinking may have evolved because of the four -party agreement. He believes that it makes sense to preserve these sites for future generations. Mr. Simp- son then explained the location of Jasper which is near the CBT project on the western slope below the Willow Creek Dam where there is a large dam site that was originally contemplated as part of the Windy Gap project. It was in fact decreed as part of the settlement with the West Slope for construction as part of the Windy Gap project. Because of additional costs they decided it would not be needed, so the parent district acquired some water rights on the site and set it aside. Norm Evans related that when the Six Cities Group originally looked into Windy Gap long before the Sub -district was thought of, the six cities had a consul- tant do a feasibility study. At that point there were about 85,000 a.f. esti- mated from the Fraser River available. The reservoir size was about 85,000. Now the amount of water is about 45,000 a.f. Mr. Simpson explained that, once again, it depends on whose hydrology you look at. It is the District's opinion that there is in excess of 48,000 a.f. on the average. The settlement agree- ment with the West Slope stipulated that the District would not bring through the Adams Tunnel from Windy Gap, anymore than 65,000 a.f. in a ten year running average, nor more than 90,000 a.f. in any one year. Tom Sanders wanted to return to the subject of Rockwell. He asked if anything was ever written down about the change in the Rockwell provisions. Mr. Simpson recalled that during the negotiations, he was negotiating for all the water users in the District except for Fort Collins because they had their own nego- tiator. Dr. Sanders is disturbed by this change as are other members of the Water Board, because each time the question of Wild & Scenic was raised, the Board was guaranteed that Rockwell was protected. Mr. Simpson reiterated that basically the Rockwell site is protected but the ability to build a dam which would alter the flow of the W&S river below is not. A dam can be built but it will be very difficult, he emphasized. The next topic for discussion was the water right filings that Fort Collins has made on the Poudre. Dr. Evans surmised that the District is entering an objection to that. Larry Simpson acknowledged that the District did enter an objection, but it was mainly an objection to maintain status in the case. The District has undertaken, upon the direction of the Board of Directors, to medi- ate the differences between City of Fort Collins and the Water Conservation Board. As a consequence, the Water Conservation Board has agreed not to ask for summary judgement and they are continuing to talk to attempt to resolve this. Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Simpson thought that some background should be provided on this, since he and the District were intimately involved in getting the minimum stream flow law passed initially. The law was looked at suspiciously by all water users in the State of Colorado and by the Legislature, since the Constitution does not provide for beneficial use being a non -diversion of water out of the river. Questions remain although the Supreme Court has found this statute to be con- stitutional. The intent at the time was to put as much control over minimum flows as possible to prevent anybody other than the State from filing for min- imum flows, in order that there wouldn't be filings for minimum flows to stop water projects, for example. It was the clear intent of the legislature that only the Water Conservation Board would be involved in the filing of minimum flows. Consequently, Fort Collins has stepped into a precedent -setting situ- ation which is looked upon with disfavor by the CWCB. Many legislators remem- ber the intent of the statute when it was passed. The District appreciated the City's bringing the filings proposals to them beforehand. Mr. Simpson thinks what Fort Collins is trying to do can be accomplished through management, par- ticularly if we had Glade Reservoir and some main stem storage. "We could accomplish everything you had originally anticipated with that filing and a lot more." In filing, the City has created a situation where the CWCB will "go to the mat." The WCB is trying to work out an option where the filing is trans- ferred to them and they make it for the City, "which seems to make everybody happy." He isn't certain whether the City will be able to accomplish that legally. He also mentioned that CWCB was trying to do this without being sub- ordinate to the Thornton filings which frankly everybody is going to battle over. What Thornton has attempted to do is, by exchange, accomplish what they couldn't with transfer and change of use. Most people agree that minimum stream flows through Fort Collins makes sense. The problem is trying to get past the legal precedent. The other question of the pollution/dilution proposal is one that has set some precedents that everyone is opposed to, Mr. Simpson revealed. He doesn't know how that will turn out. Henry Caulfield stated that he was a party to the Federal law in 1960 that approved that. It was a time when engineers, etc. were strongly in favor of "pollution/dilution." The law was later repealed because it was viewed as being a substitute for cleaning up the effluent. When you begin to look at Western streams in the arid part of the country, where the water gets low, the concentration of the effluent in the stream becomes rather high. Mr. Caulfield contends that in the arid west, some dilution is an appro- priate action. He was quick to add, but not as a substitute for cleaning up a stream. Mr. Simpson responded that in the instance to which Mr. Caulfield is referring, it may not be a problem, but the concern is an instance where people are denied the use of water because someone else wants to use it to dilute their pollution. Nobody was concerned about the philosophy behind the pro- posal, he said, but the precedent it might create in other places. Norm Evans agreed that an instream flow filing would open the door to mass con- fusion if every city along the river did the same as a way of avoiding pollu- tion control. On the other hand, you can look at the City as just the effluent discharger, responsible for meeting certain standards. "We have options of how we meet those standards; one is treat the water more, but another, and one that Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 9 we should be able to invest our resources in equally, might be dilution." If we own water and we find the use of the water more cost effective for dilution, and nobody is adversely affected, this should be an alternative, he believes. Mr. Simpson reiterated that there are ways of accomplishing this without get- ting into a legal precedent. Mike Smith asked, is dilution for pollution con- sidered beneficial use in the Colorado statutes? "No, it is not," was Mr. Simpson's reply. He went on to say that even minimum stream flow is question- able, because the constitution says that the water must be diverted from the stream in order to make beneficial use of it. The supreme court, upon the insistence of the legislature and the governor, bent the law as far as they could in this instance. Nancy Gray commented that at a NCWCD Board meeting when the Fort Collins fil- ings were discussed, there was a great deal of positive reaction. At later discussions, it was stated that the way Fort Collins chose to go about it pro- bably was not a positive thing in terms of water law over time, and that there are alternatives. Why hasn't the City chosen those alternatives and do you agree in terms of the legal precedence? Mr. Smith replied that the City's first attempt was to preserve what is there. "We filed knowing Thornton was going to file, and knowing we were going to supplement that later on." Ms. Gray repeated. "Is it a bad means and if it is, why wouldn't you use an alter- native?" Henry Caulfield explained that the City is not asserting a minimum stream flow within the meaning of the statute that involves the Conservation Board. "What we are asserting is a water right in the name of municipal use to have these flows for both purposes." This is a case law that would probably go to the supreme court, but we are asserting a new beneficial aspect for munici- pal water use. Paul Eckman explained further that a distinction is made between a minimum stream flow and an instream water right. Mr. Caulfield added, "and that's an important distinction." Mr. Simpson argued that this is what is causing people to panic. If the interpretation is correct, that you don't have to take the water out of the stream for municipal use and instream flows are in fact municipal beneficial uses, then Colorado water law would be changed substantially. "Our thinking," he said, "is that it could have been done through present law, and through the CWCB and the same thing would have been accomplished." Mr. Eckman responded that Mr. Simpson has strongly indi- cated that what Fort Collins has done is not within the law. "We don't think the law is that clear and we feel that the question of dilution is still an open question as to whether that is beneficial use and whether we can appro- priate an instream water right, and whether there needs to be a diversion." Mr. Eckman explained further when and why Fort Collins filed. It was at the end of the year and there was the scepter of Thornton possibly filing. "We put together our application to try to answer that threat and also hoping that we could refine our concept with the various objectors. They conducted an inves- tigation as to who the objectors are, and there are only five: the CWCB, NCWCD, Greeley, Thornton and St. Vrain Conservancy District. Incidentally, Thornton, had 26 objectors, he added. Stan Ponce commented that he doesn't think Fort Collins is the only one doing this. Some of the Federal agencies are addressing this same issue. Mr. Simpson said they will face the same strong opposition. Mr. Ponce responded, Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 10 "then the state is faced with the Federal Non -reserve right issue which is even worse." Mr. Caulfield explained further that there is a difference as he sees it. What the City is preparing to do is in the name of Fort Collins. With the solution that is being suggested the rights would be in the name of the State of Colorado. "The CWCB is not subject to our control. We might have differ- ences in the future about how these matters might be handled. There is a sub- stantive difference in that sense between these two methods. It isn't just a question of abstract protection of rights --it's a question of who is going to represent those rights; whose rights are they?" Mr. Simpson responded that there is a question in his mind whether that constitutes a "municipal flow." If the City continues with the process, the Courts will have to decide, he con- cluded. Dr. Evans asked if there were any further comments or questions. Dr. Sanders said that he would like to clarify a phrase that was used. "Dilution is the solution to pollution," is the way it should be stated, he claims. Mr. Simpson said, to a degree it is. Waste engineers have agreed that standards in the receiving stream should be set at a level to assimilate a part of the pollution as long as it doesn't interfere with the downstream use of the water. He explained that the District is in a position where they have a multi -faceted role. They are a water supplier but they get involved in the wastewater side only to the degree necessary to protect the use of the water to their constitu- ents. They are also concerned about standards placed on the cities to the point where they have to clean up the water far beyond the needs of the farmers downstream. As a consequence, they are a strong supporter of the 208 water quality group. There is an effort to try to form 208 into a more formal orga- nization considering the probable demise of the COG. They see, in the future, more effort in non -point source pollution as it relates to runoffs from cities and farms. The District has increased their efforts in irrigation management scheduling with farmers to try to cut back on washing the fertilizer down the field, from an economic sense as well as the prevention of pollution. Mr. Simpson announced a water users meeting on Tuesday, March 24 at the Uni- versity Holiday Inn. He issued an invitation for anyone interested to attend. The topic will be the projected water supply for this year. The Cache La Poudre is only 50% - 60% of normal at this point which is one of the lowest it the area. Tom Sanders asked about raising the level of the Horsetooth Dams. Mr. Simpson related that basically the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the SCS changed the rules again. They added a new maximum probable flood (MPF) which is about 34 inches of rain in 12 hours over Horsetooth. That, as a consequence, took all the surcharge capacity of the dams over the top by about an inch. The District disagrees very strongly with the methodology used to cal- culate that storm. However, as a water agency, the District can't take a chance, since the reservoir is located right above Fort Collins, so they must accept the calculation. Originally the District proposed raising the dams 4 ft. which was approved by the Federal Government as a federal cost under the Dam Safety Act. At the last minute the Bureau pulled the money from our pro- ject and shifted it to the Salt River Project, because they had more votes. Subsequently, they changed the policy and the District was required to produce Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 11 50% of the cost of that rehabilitation. The District has now reached a con- tractual agreement with the U.S. Government to pursue that over the 1988-89 season perhaps running into 190. "In the meantime, we will still be in that 10,000 a.f. hold order which means we can't use that facility to its fullest capacity." As the level of the dams is raised, there will be an impact on rec- reation because the roads will be closed at various times. The modifications to the dams are going to cost the water users and the taxpayers of northern Colorado a significant sum of money; close to $1 1/2 million. Mary Lou Smith asked what the mechanism for raising that money will be. Mr. Simpson said the District has the money in reserves right now. "We have been anticipating this," he added. Tom Sanders suggested going back after the modifications and conduct a re- analysis to show that the calculation was "ridiculous," and use the increased storage capability to develop it further. Mr. Simpson explained that about a year and a half ago he had met with the heads of the Corps of Engineers, the SCS and the Bureau in Washington, and he had convinced the Corps to agree to take another look at it. The Bureau was noncommittal and the SCS became incensed that the District was even questioning their judgement. The group from the Colorado Water Congress produced a very good analysis to prove that the calculation was ridiculous. It is Mr. Simp- son's opinion that the storm (PMF) they are predicting is so remote as to be a joke. "It is unfortunate that everyone is allowing this to be thrust upon them." Dr. Evans informed the Board that the present estimates for the PMF cost the Federal Inter Agency Task Force $2 million in development. There were propos- als that would have cost them about $400,000 to do what you are talking about, he said. The Corps can't justify spending more money above that $2 million to check out what has already been done. The Electric Power Research Institute is interested so we are still working on funding what you suggested, he added. Dr. Evans thanked Larry Simpson, John Moore and Nancy Gray for taking the time to come and participate in the Water Board meeting. The information and dis- cussions have been very valuable, he said. He asked that we continue to pursue joint meetings of the NCWCD Board with the Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley Water Boards, and he hopes that will occur in the near future. Larry Simpson was pleased that the Water Board invited him to come and would be happy to return any time. He also invited the Board to attend the District Board meetings because they are open to the public. Gale Miller, Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor, prepared some background information about the subject which was distributed to the Board with their packets. Ms. Miller prefaced her remarks by saying that as Pretreatment Sup- ervisor it is her responsibility to administer the EPA Pretreatment Program and to keep tabs on all the various industries. She was asked to prepare some information about the CSU Pretreatment involvement in response to some ques- tions which came up at the last Water Board meeting. Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 12 She said, if time permits she would show a video which CSU prepared to train their staff on hazardous waste handling. She also brought copies of the recently released manual CSU has developed on instructing their staff on hazar- dous waste management. She went on to summarize the report that was distrib- uted to the Board. In preparing for the report, she went through all the information their office has on file about CSU on pretreatment issues. She also met with Sid Waldren of Environmental Health Services, the group that handles hazardous waste issues at CSU. After they met he gave her a tour of their hazardous waste handling facility and also a tour of their landfill. Page one of the report is essentially background information and an explanation of how the City originally determined that CSU wastewater is primarily domestic in nature. It also discusses the progressive involvement of CSU in the pre- treatment program and the surcharges for high strength waste. Page 2 reports on spills, plant upsets and other problems associated with CSU, as well as a run down on the current status of the hazardous waste handling program which is administered through Environmental Health Services. Page three discusses potential problem areas at CSU and suggests recommendations for further work. Pages four - eight is a summary of the data gathered as part of the initial wastewater characterization study performed in 1981-82. Jo Boyd asked about the statement that currently no CSU facilities are sur- charged, although the City is sampling. If sampling has been occurring for at least 10 years, and the City has the ability to charge surcharges, providing that the wastes are large enough and concentrated enough to require a sur- charge, why hasn't a charge been made? Ms. Miller replied that with regard to the Dairy, with their current configuration, the flow is very low. As far as the overall issue of surcharging, that can be attributed to a lack of staffing. It has only been since the fall of 1985 that the Pretreatment Program has had full time staffing, and with all the other obligations at the time, this was not high on the list. Ms. Miller added that they are currently gathering data to surcharge them. She anticipates doing that in the next couple of months, primarily from the Vet Hospital. Henry Caulfield asked if Environmental Health Services is an administrative body at CSU. Ms. Miller explained that it is an administrative body and that it is the same group that was a department and is now called services. They are still located at the microbiology building, but they function separately. Mr. Caulfield recalled that it was reported at the last meeting that there are six different places -where CSU enters the municipal sewage system. Is that correct? Ms. Miller is sure there are more than six. He continued. There are many different places at CSU where things could happen that could be very bad. Ms. Miller explained that the six places Mr. Caulfield is referring to are the monitoring manholes that were used in the characterization study. Those man- holes will represent flows from all of the research type buildings on campus. As far as what is coming out of some of the dorms, she is not certain about that. Mr. Caulfield asked. "You feel certain you've identified all the research type laboratories?" "Yes," replied Ms. Miller. Mr. Caulfield added. "You will be proceeding further with them in the future with this?" Ms. Miller said that their current tact is to continue as they have because the data Water Board Minutes March 20, 1987 Page 13 indicates "that the flows we have are primarily wastewater." We are relying on the aggressiveness of the hazardous waste system administered through Environ- mental Services. As long as their program is effective, we are okay, but as you can see, there is great potential for things going down the drain if they are not effective. Mr. Caulfield related that as a faculty member himself, he is aware of "how difficult it is to get control in a university." It seems to Mr. Caulfield that a good deal of detective work is necessary to really follow up the Envi- ronmental Services group. Tom Sanders believes that things are going to change. In the past, hazardous waste disposal has been free, but soon the University will probably be charged for disposal, and when that happens he thinks the City will again experience problems. MaryLou Smith asked Ms. Miller if she could bring the CSU videotape to another meeting. Ms. Miller said she would be happy to do that. She then distributed the manuals which CSU had recently prepared. Ms. Miller also showed a sample of a poster she had prepared to possibly display in campus labs, etc. to get the student's attention in particular. Dr. Evans thanked Gale Miller for an excellent report. Other Business Mike Smith distributed notebooks prepared by the staff called "Water Supply Policy -- Review and Recommendations," from the Water Board Policy Committee. This topic will be the major subject for discussion at the next meeting. Rich Shannon will be present at that meeting to preview his presentation to the City Council on this topic. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Water Booardard[ Secrree tary