HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/18/1986MINUTES
Water Board
July 18, 1986
Members Present
Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Tom
Moore, Tom Sanders, John Scott, Jim O'Brien, Stan Ponce, Marylou Smith, Dave
Stewart, Jo Boyd (alt.)
Staff Present
Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Curt Miller, Tom Gallier,
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
Guests
Ward Fischer, Legal Counsel for Water Supply and Storage Company
Joe Maurier, Colorado State Division of Parks and Recreation
Craig Bergman, Park Manager for Lory State Park
Suzanne Bossinger, Natural Resources Board
Members Absent
Ray Herrmann (alt.)
Vice President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were
discussed:
Minutes
The minutes of June 27, 1986 were approved as distributed.
Staff Reports
Treated Water Production Summary
Dennis Bode reported that water use continued to be fairly high during the
month of June and the first half of July; a recorded 13% above average use.
The weather has remained somewhat dry with little precipitation.
Page 2
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
"Picnic Rock" Issue
Joe Maurier of the State Division of Parks and Recreation, introduced Craig
Bergman, the Park Manager for Lory State Park. Mr. Bergman will be respon-
sible for the management of "Picnic Rock" if the state plan is implemented.
Mr. Maurier presented some background information about the issue. For the
last 10 to 15 years, use of the Poudre River by boaters has increased sub-
stantially. Because of that, several years ago, the river outfitters com-
bined their efforts and went to the legislature to try to promote a better
image for their industry. There were few regulations or safety precautions
at that time. As a result, the Legislature appointed the Colorado Division
of Parks and Recreation Board to initiate some rules and regulations, mostly
safety oriented, for regulating river outfitters in the state in order to
improve the group's image.
The Legislature then asked the Board to investigate the possibility of a
comprehensive recreational management system for rivers in the state. At
that time, the state selected examples of some of the more visible problems
on rivers that might be solved if they were regulated under a recreation man-
agement agency. One of the areas that was cited was the "Picnic Rock" situa-
tion on the Poudre River where there is an access problem for both put -in and
take-out, as well as sanitation, health and safety problems. They began by
having a public meeting to determine what some of the particular problems
were and try to come up with possible solutions.
Next, Mr. Maurier pointed out the "Picnic Rock" site on a map and indicated
where the problems exist. It is approximately 2 miles up the Canyon from
Ted's Place. The major problems seem to be on the section of the river below
and above the Water Treatment Plant. This section receives about 80% of the
use from river kayakers and commercial outfitters, primarily because it is
convenient, relatively safe and it is easy for the novice boater.
Some of the problems that evolved from their study were: 1) There are no
toilet facilities; 2) There are safety issues. The major put -in is between
Mr. Householder's property and the U.S. Forest Service boundary It is an
unsafe situation because people park their vehicles on the road and then they
must cross the road. 3) There is significant resource degradation, since
there is no day to day management of the area. While looking into the situa-
tion, they discovered that the City of Fort Collins owns half of the parking
lot that the Division is interested in managing. The City owns that property
because there are two 27" and 24" water transmission lines from Water Treat-
ment Plant No. 1 located beneath the area. Thus, it was necessary to talk to
the City about obtaining an easement. The Parks Division has worked out a
memorandum of understanding with the Division of Wildlife. They have agreed
to a 10-year easement at no cost in order that the Parks Division can manage
the site for them, with an option to renew after 10 years. The Division is
now asking for a recommendation from the Water Board for some kind of
Page 3
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
arrangement whereby the Parks Division can do the day to day management. Mr.
Maurier suggested that perhaps the state could purchase the property and
grant an easement to the City because of the transmission lines. Along with
the day to day management, the Parks Division is contemplating charging a fee
for the public to use the site. The State will provide trash service,
sanitary facilities and law enforcement which costs money. The fees that
would be established are those that are currently charged in the State park
system -- a daily pass or an annual pass which is good in any park in the
system for the year. They also intend to eliminate camping and make it a day
use area only. The site would be open for toilet facilities basically from
April through October. Mr. Maurier showed a few slides of the area and
explained what they intend to do.
Jim O'Brien asked about the fee structure. Mr. Maurier said for every
vehicle that enters the park, you can buy a $3.00 daily pass which is good
until noon the next day or an annual pass for $25.00 which is a vehicle pass
good for any place in the state for a year.
Mr. O'Brien sees a problem with the kayakers whom he thinks would not want to
buy a $3.00 pass. He is himself a kayaker. Is there going to be that kind
of regulation of the fee structure on a day to day basis? If it is, he sees
cars distributed up and down the highway because kayakers won't use that area
anymore. Mr. Maurier responded that the purchase of a pass will be by the
honor system, but if the law enforcement officials catch someone without a
pass, they would be obligated to enforce the regulation. The only reason the
Division thinks a fee is necessary is that there are costs associated with
the day to day management, he stressed.
Neil Grigg made a recommendation that the Water Board appoint a sub -committee
to draft a recommendation and coordinate it with the Natural Resources Board.
Tom Sanders suggested that trading land might be an option here. Mike Smith
thinks that could be a possibility.
Henry Caulfield moved that the Water Board form a three member committee to
come up with a recommendation which the entire Board will review. MaryLou
Smith seconded the motion. Jim O'Brien reiterated that he sees a great deal
of difficulty in getting kayakers to pay the fee, especially on weekends when
there is a lot of use. In the spring when the water is high, what is going
to happen is they will be distributed further upstream. As a result, they
will start using the more difficult sections with more limited access which
would force people into a more severe situation, he contends.
A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. At that time President
Evans appointed MaryLou Smith, Jo Boyd and John Scott to be members of the
sub -committee, with Ms. Smith serving as chairman.
Page 4
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
Molly Nortier introduced Suzanne Bossinger who was representing the Natural
Resources Board. She is chairman of their sub -committee for this issue.
Discussion of Water Issues - Ward Fischer
Ward Fischer was asked to attend the Water Board meeting to discuss philo-
sophically and practically, the things that have been occurring relative to
the Thornton issue. He briefly discussed the pending lawsuit by Thornton
brought against WSSC and the City of Fort Collins.
Mr. Fischer stressed how grateful the Water Supply and Storage Co. is for the
support it has received from Fort Collins. Mr. Fischer made the point that
maintaining local control of the ditch companies in this area is very impor-
tant. He related that it has always been the philosophy of the Water Board
and the City that we should maintain a cooperative relationship between
agriculture and the urban user. It is his contention that Thornton does not
share this philosophy. Should they attain control of a ditch company, the
system would deteriorate in the sense of providing water for anything other
than an urban function. A substantial number of farms would be dried up;
land that Fort Collins has tried to preserve.
As far as cooperation in the region is concerned, Mr. Fischer thinks the City
of Loveland will be a strong ally with Fort Collins. A cooperative effort by
water user entities is doubtful because they are in disarray at this point.
Surprisingly, environmentalists who have traditionally expressed the need to
preserve agricultural lands, have not been supportive, he added. He went on
to say that we need to initiate an investigation of what is happening, per-
haps through a local investigative reporter. We must find out what the facts
are and get them publicized and attempt to capture some public support from
what is now a very apathetic public, he stressed. He is extremely concerned
about our quality of life 20 years from now if nothing is done. The proposed
front range highway discussed in recent media reports, could be a right-of-
way for a massive pipeline from Fort Collins to Pueblo, he warned.
In terms of the water supply situation, WSSC is looking to continued support
from Fort Collins. The issuance of shares of stock to Fort Collins has been
extremely helpful so long as it is upheld. One of the things WSSC is explor-
ing, is the 2,088 units of CBT water from Great Western Sugar Company. WSSC
wants more water in their ditch because Thornton is taking so much out. They
now have a contract with G.W. for the purchase of 2,088 CBT units at $750 per
unit. The contract, if it is not enjoined, will be closed July 30. It will be
paid for with the Company's bank loan. They would like to consider issuing
Fort Collins stock so they could pay for this, or possibly put it temporarily
in the City's name and exchange it for stock. These are just ideas, he
emphasized. He thinks it is good for WSSC to acquire CBT water.
Page 5
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
Mr. Fischer hopes the Water Board remains receptive for further cooperation
with WSSC. They would much prefer that Fort Collins would be the major
stockholder rather than Thornton.
Mr. Fischer was asked how much water is being purchased for speculation. He
answered that it is difficult to speculate with CBT water because one must
have a farm to attach it to. The water that is being speculated is ditch
company river rights on the Poudre and the Thompson.
How much water is likely to stay in irrigation, someone asked? He responded,
for at least the short term, those who had not sold when they were under
pressure and were offered such good prices, are likely to wait for awhile.
How many will ultimately sell is an open question. If Thornton ever had con-
trol of WSSC, we would probably see a massive exodus which, he thinks, Thorn-
ton anticipates and that is why they want control.
Do any other area water entities hold stock in WSSC? None of the water enti-
ties such as ELCO, Fort Collins -Loveland and Loveland own anything in the
Company; Fort Collins is the only municipal owner besides Thornton.
How is WSSC going to work with the water quality issues with regard to the
"first use?" The WSSC Board has no argument theoretically, with the first
use concept being a workable system; it is theoretically and legally pos-
sible. The great danger is the quality of water you get back. WSSC informed
Thornton that the idea they had of dealing with separate stockholders is
something they "wouldn't recognize." WSSC said if you are going to have a
first use or reuse program, it must be worked out with the Board. First,
WSSC must keep control of the Board because if Thornton elects the Board and
is dealing with itself, "you can imagine the water quality standards WSSC
would impose on Thornton." Assuming the Board remains independent, the com-
pany hasn't arrived at the point of knowing exactly how to approach the water
quality issue, except that the Board has agreed that Thornton can start their
water quality sampling, all at their own expense. WSSC has requested that if
they sample, the Company wants to know the results. The Company has talked
about letting them get results to see what their suggestion is, then talk
about hiring a consultant to advise them very carefully from the standpoint of
usefulness for agriculture, but also usefulness and healthfulness from the
standpoint of other users. It is a critical system.
Is there any way to work with the other ditch companies to work towards more
of a metro system or try to work together to obtain more storage rights by
improving Poudre No. 6 or renovating Halligan, etc.? Mr. Fischer said the
Water users association is afraid to do anything. He repeated that the agri-
cultural community is in disarray right now. Thornton has requested meetings
with North Poudre. Possibly later on, options of working with the ditch
companies can be explored.
Page 6
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
Is there a way to explore some kind of a first option if stock came up that
the City could purchase? Mr. Fischer doesn't know how they could bind a
stockholder to sell to Fort Collins. He thinks they have enough potential
things to do concerning the issuance of new stock that we can satisfy far
more than that. Since it doesn't look like we are going to get a coopera-
tive effort to do much, one of the things Fort Collins is going to have to
determine, is how much water they are going to need. Ten to twenty years
from now it is going to be hard to get water. "I'd sure have a cushion," he
urged.
Neil Grigg commented on Mr. Fisher's statement that Fort Collins must deter-
mine how much water it is going to need, so we can start assuming an effec-
tual basis on which to proceed. Since the different entities are so much in
disarray, we'll need to have a strategy to move ahead with, he concluded. 1)
The staff would do, as aggressively as possible, the studies of how much
water we are going to need. The Poudre River study will be completed in the
near future, which will address some needs, but not all of them because
everything is not, strictly speaking, in the Poudre Basin. There are some
questions we need to ask which may not be answered in that Poudre study. We
need staff to consider water needs for the region as well as Fort Collins. If
Fort Collins is not looking at those needs for the region, nobody is. 2)
Where do we go with the regional cooperation effort? The letter went out from
the regional meeting on May 20, and we will assess the responses we get from
that. As Mr. Fischer pointed out, some of the entities in the region are not
necessarily cooperating with us. A starting point may be with Loveland and
the two sets of County Commissioners. "However we play that, we need some
kind of a regional group to move ahead, work together, reach agreements on
water needs and sharing of facilities, not only hard facilities (pipes etc.)
but also water." Is the existing regional group going to be effective in
doing that? It may be that we shouldn't be "putting our chips" on the exist-
ing committee because of the lack of cooperation from Greeley, Dr. Grigg con-
cluded.
Henry Caulfield raised a point that he thinks the Board should reflect on.
The reasons that ELCO and Fort Collins -Loveland don't own any WSSC stock is
that they get all their water from Horsetooth at Soldier Canyon and there-
fore, have never thought of the need for having anything other than CBT
water. It would be difficult to persuade them that they should have an inter-
est in buying WSSC stock as a part of a combined effort. There is no munici-
pal entity other than Fort Collins and Greeley that use the Poudre River and
can use WSSC water as a source.
Neil Grigg went on to the third point of his strategy. He pointed out that
Mr. Fischer related that people are apathetic and not understanding the
implications of what is going on. That suggests that we need some kind of
educational effort, but it needs to be more than to educate the Water Boards.
Page 7
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
It should be an economic educational effort that goes through the newspapers
and into the chambers of commerce and any other group that could be effective
in understanding the issue and could have some influence. Two things need
to be done: 1) A concerted effort to go before the groups that can have some
influence and to present what the picture is. The groups need to be identi-
fied. Then we need to get the message out to them, he urged. 2) We need to
have some economic impact studies of what it is going to be like if we lose
300,000 acre feet -- we don't have that information yet. Is the capability
of the Water and Wastewater staff sufficient to make the coordination with
the regional groups? It is becoming urgent with the activity that is going
on.
It seems to John Scott that all the urban and industrial users have been
pinpointed in the two cities, but the agricultural users haven't really come
together and formed any policy, but the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District has. They are committed to keeping water in Northern Colorado, he
stressed. He added that they also have a staff that can work with our staff.
Henry Caulfield related that a majority of the Board of Directors of the
Conservancy District are from agricultural areas; Weld County and those out
beyond Weld. Is it possible that the whole philosophy of the District may
change? Mr. Fischer thinks that the District will remain stalwart helpers in
the battle. He further believes that the counties beyond Weld are supportive
of our position.
Marylou Smith asked if the Fort Collins Water Board still has an interest in
meeting with the Greeley Water Board. Dr. Evans explained that he wasn't
able to arrange a meeting with them yet, so the question is still open. Mr.
Caulfield thinks it certainly couldn't hurt to continue to pursue that.
Mike Smith commented that the Greeley staff is still very much interested in
working with Fort Collins. They realize that Fort Collins is a key to
exchanging water from the Poudre, etc. They are not ready to give up all of
their Poudre system and they don't want to. It appears that the Greeley
staff is being put in an awkward spot.
Henry Caulfield asked about the possibility of purchasing capacity from the
Greeley Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Smith related that Greeley wants to keep
the plant -- their pipeline can carry about 18 mgd and the plant can treat
from 24-30 mgd. They are, however, looking towards selling some peaking
capacity in the summer if we are interested. Mr. Smith concluded that this
is certainly something you can't disregard with the cost of treatment plant
expansions.
At this point President Evans thanked Ward Fischer for participating in the
meeting and lending his expertise to a very important discussion. Mr.
Fischer again thanked the Water Board and staff for their support of WSSC.
Page 8
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
Water Planning Discussion
MaryLou Smith brought up the question of Thornton's $300 million lawsuit
against the City of Fort Collins. She asked Assistant City Attorney Paul
Eckman to explain that. Mr. Eckman began by saying that he had sent a memo
to each of the City Council members briefing them on it. He will see that
each of the Water Board members receives a copy of the memo as well. He
explained that the basis of Thornton's complaint against the City is that the
City has somehow inversely condemned the interest of Thornton and has taken
Thornton's real property, water being a type of real property, without paying
them just compensation which the Constitution requires whenever the
government condemns someone else's property. Their theory is that unless the
City of Fort Collins has what is referred to as dominant eminent domain power
over Thornton, then Fort Collins can't take this property, and if it does
have dominant eminent domain power over Thornton, they have asked the Court
to establish a commission to determine the value of taking and require Fort
Collins to pay that value or else void the contract and void the problem at
the same time. Mr. Eckman stated that this is a strange theory because legal
staff doesn't see any way that it could be considered "a taking." The City
merely exercised a right to contract for the exchange of water. Mr. Eckman
said that legal staff considers the theory to be frivolous as well, so they
will be asking for dismissal of the claim against the City for failure to
state a claim. The Legal staff will probably move for summary judgement if
they don't get that dismissal, and if they don't get summary judgement, they
will ask for attorney's fees because of the frivolous claim.
Dr. Evans stated, as Neil Grigg had pointed out, that the Board needs to
bring a sharper focus on what is ahead of us and where we are going. He asked
the sub -committee that was formed to interface for the Board with regard to
the Thornton issue, to take an expanded charge and begin the task of looking
at the strategies and coming up with recommendations for the Board to con-
sider, as to what we ought to follow in planning ahead for our demands, and
looking ahead towards the associated questions that have been raised, such as
the regional question. The Chairman, Neil Grigg, has asked that the Presi-
dent and Vice President serve as ex officio members of the committee. The
committee will be asked, if possible, to arrive at some progress for the next
meeting.
Henry Caulfield suggested that what is needed from staff is a plan, an out-
line or a proposal about estimating the numbers for long term demand. It
seems to Mr. Caulfield that it is urgent to know what we are talking about
here. Mike Smith related that staff has done some preliminary work on the
water demands for the urban growth area. That can be a part of the meeting,
he said.
Page 9
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
It was asked what the projected population growth is for the urban growth
area. Mr. Bode replied about 300,000 for the year 2020. Tom Sanders said,
"then we only need about 30,000 more acre feet." Mr. Caulfield thinks we
need to go beyond the year 2020.
Dr. Evans asked for approval of the minutes for the special Water Board meet-
ing since this was not done earlier. The minutes for the special Water Board
meeting of June 19, 1986 were approved as distributed.
Jim O'Brien asked if staff had noticed any response in the price of water
since the whole Thornton issue has emerged. Dennis Bode replied that there
hasn't been enough information available -- certainly with the WSSC water
itself, from the reports he has heard, the price has gone up. Some people
thought that $750 per unit for CBT water was high, but the market has moved
to other water. Mr. Caulfield asked, "how can we find out what the price of
river water has been? What about the other ditch companies?"
Mike Smith assured the Board that they would do some checking into this. Mr.
Smith added that, from the brokers they have talked to, the supply of avail-
able water has diminished -- there is not as much on the market.
Mike Smith introduced the new Wastewater Treatment Manager, Tom Gallier who
came to the Utility from Castlerock, CO. He has been "on board" for a week.
Committee Reports
A. ByLaws
Tom Moore brought up a couple of suggested revisions which the Board
needs to discuss. One is Article VI, paragraph C regarding the Board
reviewing major reports and the budget. Paul Eckman wanted clarification
on "major reports," and Mr. Caulfield doesn't recall that the Board has
ever reviewed the budget -- whether we should or should not is the ques-
tion, he said. Mike Smith thinks the Board is obligated to look at
rates. Dave Stewart proposed that be changed to all major reports, pro-
posed rates and investment proposals. Mr. Moore thinks the budget should
be left in there. Paul Eckman suggested the wording, "review all major
policy matters and budget issues. Mr. Caulfield thinks major reports
should be retained. Paul Eckman then revised it to read, "major policy
matters and reports and budget issues."
Henry Caulfield raised the question as to whether the City Manager should
any longer be an ex officio voting member of the Board. That change may
require a vote if it is in the City Charter. Mr. Eckman will check on
that. It was decided that those Board members with questions or sugges-
tions would pass them on to the committee or to the Water Board secretary
prior to the next meeting.
Page 10
Water Board Minutes
July 18, 1986
The sub -committee on Water Issues scheduled their meeting for Friday, August
1, at 3:00 at the Service Center.
It is Henry Caulfield's thought that the Water Board should continue to pur-
sue a meeting with the Greeley Water Board and also pursue a meeting in the
near future with the Loveland Water Board; as separate meetings. Norm Evans
said he would work towards setting up these meetings.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Water 1B� Secretary
W
w
E-+
A
N
c0
a
cn
ul
a�
aA
o�
U
a
h
U
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o ko o to
CQ .r ..4
F-
U
O
CL
W
N
C7
Z)
Q
z
pq
z
Q
U
W
0
r
m
i
0
}
CC
¢
r
[!7
J
C.
CD :D
Z Z
J ¢
J
❑ Z
U O
a'_ U m
❑ - P
LL G -
W O
❑ a_
FY w
H
U ¢
3
G
W
w
Cr
F-
U
w
0
G
r
U
+'J
Z
Z)
13
}
LC
s
¢
u:
¢
L
m
w
IL
Z
¢
r7
aJrlc'��n$
•0 N? P P m #
h-+m m + $
.rI'r vn$
Y1 $
$
n#
n#
r� $
T #
#
ri
m #
A $
m #
N? #
11 #
#
,0 03 1-
•0 m eq• C'J #
10 U7 C.0On
r;.:u-i uin�
O t a• r"
r!-nm mn$
$
aJN?00V)$
"r NnT $
rlra� aul#
tIl m ^1 t...' .•4 �. $
IT rdh nTCA
$
10 dJ C•1 0 C'd U7 #
T U7 0 U7 r'^.. $
$
ul 0C`!0NcoKI
#
ctm mN? #
LC $
} #
#
m,• $
T H W #
E U CC $
HL a_
Z
H H H H $
CJJG UU $
U # # ¢ $
:D a_ CL F CL x x $
❑I— F-OOOO $
0z3f—LL LL LL
u! $
r-
C
fi
m #
z G $
W O O 2 #
H L $
a:mmO $
W Z Z E #
Ha:tY$
J m O 0 $
W GGLL $
G #
Y x Z U+ #
H E E ¢ $
¢ $
a - _
m -
ic
} LL 0 :k
f— LL❑ k
LU -CL
¢ LL
0- 1
G <11 U
O W - It $
�W'+ U J #
a:W¢O#
LLI , M $
❑ 1- I-
HtLU¢ $
W #
h 0 '_'
C"!
CA
m
V�
r..�.
t=?
K. Co
Nj CO
r,
r-� u
ra r!
JI $
W
H #
W #
LL LL 0
H t
w U —CL
G .T IL
W L F t
G<TU:k
W ¢ #
L J
O W ¢ 0
<L CL ¢ a: :k
W
s