Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/20/1987r • MINUTES Water Board February 20, 1987 Members Present Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, John Scott, Dave Stewart, Mary Lou Smith, Tom Sanders, Ray Herrmann (alt.), Jo Boyd, (alt.) Staff Present Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Members Absent Norm Evans, President, Stan Ponce Jim Hibbard, Tom Gallier, Andy Pineda, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, opened the meeting in the absence of President Norm Evans. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of January 16, 1987 were approved as distributed. Agenda Item No. 3 - Proposed Rental Rates Dennis Bode, Water Resources and Planning Manager, explained that each year when the irrigation companies have established the annual assessment rates for their water, the Water Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus water. A table listing the assessment rates and the proposed rental rates for 1987, as well as the corresponding rates for 1985 and 1986, was sent to Board members for their review. Mr. Bode explained that the rates are based on several factors, including past rental rates in the area, current assessments, and anticipated supply and demand conditions. Basically, the proposed rates are close to what they were in 1986. The staff recommended that the proposed rental rates be adopted. Mr. Bode was asked about the rental procedures. Staff takes requests early in the year from people who want to rent the water and the list is confirmed about the middle of April after the CBT quota has been set. At that time staff can look at the whole supply and determine if they have surplus water to rent. "If we get into a situation where we have more rental requests than we can satisfy, we establish a priority list; whether they have rented water in the last few years, etc.," he explained. Henry Caulfield asked who is notified when a request is confirmed. "We notify the ditch company, Mr. Bode replied. "If it's CBT water, we notify the NCWCD," he added. Page 2 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 John Scott asked how much, on the average in the last two years, has been rented. Mr. Bode responded, last year the City rented about 170 shares out of 1,000 of North Poudre water. Also last year the City did not rent much CBT water --only about 400 a.f. In the previous year it was more like 1,000. All of the WSSC water has been rented in the last several years. In drier years, there probably would be a greater demand for CBT water, he added. He explained that the price of North Poudre water has been lowered from $75.00/share to $65.00 this year because we may rent more at that price. At this point, Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the proposed rental rates. After a second from Ray Herrmann, the motion passed unanimously. -- Neil Grigg presented the following scenario: There are probably many ditch companies from other cities that are not using all of their water similar to the situation here. What would prevent some authority from going into the wholesale water business, but without buying water rights; just getting contracts for first right of refusal on all rental water, but at low prices like we are experiencing, and using that to develop a reliable additional source of regional water? Mr. Bode admitted that it could work, but it is difficult to take ditch water from one system into another. There are also limitations in terms of transferring the water on an annual basis, he concluded. MaryLou Smith asked, wouldn't it be a problem to get water to buy in dry years? Dr. Grigg replied that, whatever authority doing this, would have contracts to buy during those times too. It would be like taking options. Dr. Grigg continued. If we get a lot of pressure in the future on the system, it might be to the advantage of the City to take the leadership in creating some kind of an entity that could serve as the broker and increase the amount of water available. If done by a consortium of public bodies, that would prevent somebody from "coming in on another raid." Mike Smith said, "you would have to go to water court and get all the points of diversion and changes of use; however, that could be done," he added. Henry Caulfield commented, "If the River (Poudre) gets tight, you can see that sort of thing happening." Agenda Item 4, Proposed Customer Trade with West Fort Colins Water District Information and a map had been sent to Water Board members prior to the meeting. Jim Hibbard, Distribution and Collection Manager, reported that the expansion of WTP No. 2 and the conversion of the City's Poudre Canyon transmission lines to raw water, will result in the transfer of 9 customers in the vicinity of Blackstock Hill to the West Fort Collins Water District. With this customer exchange as a starting point, staff has discussed the benefits of a more comprehensive customer exchange with the District. The benefits to both the City and the District would be the "untangling" of overlapping service areas resulting in less customer confusion, less duplication of effort, and more efficient use of existing distribution systems. Page 3 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 The exchange currently being discussed, involves 65 City customers and 82 District customers. At this time it appears that the City and the District can accomplish this exchange with an insignificant exchange of cash. In fact, the two are at the point where they might be able to exchange customers and facilities and "call it even." Currently the City and the District are working with the City Attorney's office to draft a proposed agreement. The City has discussed this with the West Fort Collins Board of Directors and they are in favor of making the trades. The City and the District also have some overlapping areas in Laporte. This probably will be considered at a future date, but not until after the current arrangement has been implemented and assessed.- Mr. Hibbard stated that no formal action is required from the Board at this time. This review was given to inform the Board of what is occurring. A detailed proposal will be reviewed and approved at a later date. Tom Sanders asked if the facilities and regulations are similar. Mr. Hibbard responded that the City will generally be taking 6-inch lines, with some 2" and 4" and some plastic pipe. Overall, he assured the Board, that both entities can take some of the facilities and improve them. Neil Grigg asked how many employees there are in the District and how many customers are on the water supply. Mr. Hibbard answered that there is one full time employee and one part time, and about 600-700 customers. Dr. Grigg suggested that this might be the time to make a "friendly offer" to take over the whole system; maintain the people who are employed there under the same arrangement. Perhaps the City could adopt a policy of taking over the Districts when they are ready to be taken over. Henry Caulfield doesn't think the Districts are ready to be taken over. Mr. Hibbard commented further that he doesn't think that the City could provide them better service at lower cost. He clarified that by saying that, "if they are ready, we might not be ready, because of the fact that a large portion of the district is fairly rural." Also, if the City imposes urban service levels on these rural customers, their costs would go up. Tom Moore asked if there have been any public meetings involving the customers. Mr. Hibbard said that they didn't want to involve customers until there was at least an indication from their board and from the City's aspect that.the proposed arrangement is possible. Obviously, customer involvement is going to be essential in order for this to succeed. "We can show customers that the immediate impact on them is going to be beneficial, " he stressed. Jo Boyd wondered about the difference in rates between the City and the District. Mr. Hibbard explained that the City and West Fort Collins rates are very close, depending on how much water is used in any particular month. Neil Grigg asked the source of their treated water. Mike Smith said that the City provides their treated water on a contractual basis. They own the water rights, however. Page 4 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Acting chairman Henry Caulfield assured Mr. Hibbard that the Board supports the City's endeavors in this matter, and that the City should continue to pursue a workable arrangement with West Fort Collins. Agenda Item No. 5, Septic Tank Wastes Mike Smith related that the issue of septic tank wastes has been around for several years. Currently Larimer County handles those at the landfill. A few years ago the County approached the City about handling those wastes, but when confronted with the cost, they lost interest. However, the problems have become worse and the County requested that they and the City reopen discussion on this matter. Tom Gallier, the Wastewater Treatment Manager, has been working on this problem with Frank Lancaster, the Natural Resources Director for the County. Mr. Gallier prepared a summary for the Water Board on the recent negotiations between Larimer County and the City staff concerning the potential for treatment of septic tank wastes in City facilities. Mr. Gallier said that when they began discussions several months ago the central idea was that whatever they came up with, they wanted it to protect the customers in terms of the investment they have in the facilities we have. Furthermore, they thought it was important not to get themselves in a situation where they had a permanent commitment to the capacity that would be represented by the waste that would be brought in. In the discussions with the County, the City has made it clear all along that if we allow capacity to be used in the system, it is only that we have that capacity conveniently available. It would be structured in any agreement that if the City needed that capacity for any reason on a temporary or permanent basis, we could shut the system down and we would have no obligations to those people. The County is in a real bind at the landfill. Not only have they allowed the disposal of septic wastes and portable toilet wastes, but of grease traps, sand and grit traps, etc. They have some real concerns about water quality impacts. Several years ago they thought about putting a treatment system out there. The lagoons can function that way, but because of groundwater impacts, that is simply not working. They are also under pressure from the state to shut down that system, but for a variety of reasons, they are reluctant to do that without giving the residents in the County, and even a few in the City still on septic tanks, an option for disposal in a convenient manner. When this was discussed originally, a pre-treatment system at the landfill was being contemplated but was very expensive. What is being processed at this point is a low tech. solution that still protects our facilities and does it at a fairly economical cost. What is being considered at this point is about 5 cents per gallon user fees, primarily because of increased manpower costs. It is the City's contention that if they are going to have a system like this, it must be closely monitored. Mr. Gallier then took questions and comments from the Board. f Page 5 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 • Tom Sanders commented that the main concern he has with septic tanks is what people put in septics that can be lethal to your system. One preventative measure would be to take a sample and test it when they plan to deposit their wastes in your system. "If it kills all of your bugs, you require them to pay for the 30-day start-up." In this proposed plan that Mr. Gallier has presented, Dr. Sanders is concerned that we may not be able to trace the violator. Mr. Gallier responded that the way it is structured, there would be someone there operating the facility at all times. Samples could be taken on each load brought in. "You can't do a COD or a BOD, however, because it becomes so complicated that they would have to take the load elsewhere." It should be noted that these haulers would be licensed by the City, Mr. Gallier added. Jo Boyd suggested that there is a "quick and dirty" BOD which has been used in situations like that. It is a manometric set up similar to a Warburg. She has talked with university professors who have to monitor university wastes and they have been able to get results in less than an hour using this method. There is equipment which costs about $200 and an operator can be trained to use it, she said. Mr. Gallier said they do have that equipment at the plant although it isn't used. That is a possibility, he said. "Some of it comes down to the economics of how large a storage tank we want to have." He added that, from past experience, he is concerned, not so much about septic wastes, but portable toilets with their odor control chemicals and preservatives. Dr. Boyd observed that the storage tank at the treatment plant seems to be far enough away that one could bleed the loads in and use sanitary wastes for dilution. Mr. Gallier commented that the old saw of "dilution not being the solution to pollution" may not work in these circumstances. If someone dumps something that really is bad, and you can tell immediately, you can shut the system down. One of the reasons the City has asked the County to do such an extensive survey at the landfill of the industrial waste coming in, as well as the sanitary, is so we will have an idea what to look for, he said. "Donahue is doing the survey for them," he added. Dr. Boyd assumed that the City would not accept grease trap waste, etc. Would the County continue to accept these semi -solid wastes? Mr. Gallier replied that, in this instance they would shut the lagoons down completely and those trucks would be required to carry their wastes to an out -of -County approved disposal site. The only ones available are in the immediate Denver -Metro area. As a result, the cost of taking care of that waste in the City and County will go up substantially, he predicted. Neil Grigg asked what kind of a waste facility is necessary to take those kinds of wastes. Mr. Gallier replied that it varies tremendously depending on what is coming in. Dr. Grigg asked why they won't take it at the landfill. Mr. Gallier used an example of a car wash pit that collects greases as well as sand and grit to explain the situation. In the process of cleaning that type of equipment, heavy metals can be released, and they tend to get concentrated in the pit. t Page 6 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Dr. Sanders was adamant about abandoning the lagoons at the landfill and having the City accept as much responsibility in this area as possible. The City can handle the domestic wastes as long as we have the capability to prevent the midnight grease dumper and heavy metal dumpers by imposing substantial fines on any violators, he contends. He added that he thinks we have an obligation, since we have the capability to do it, to treat septic wastes. Henry Caulfield asked if there was any obligation for a resident taken into the City, to abandon the septic tank. Mr. Smith's response was that County Health usually handles that. The County generally won't allow the party to repair the septic system if it is within 400 feet of a public sanitary sewer. Mr. Caulfield also asked if those wastes accepted would be in the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Gallier stated that the limitation the City placed on the County was that we would only accept wastes generated within Larimer County. Mr. Caulfield restated, "You don't know what proportion of these.would be in the UGA? Mike Smith said, that he expected most of the wastes would be outside the UGA. Mr. Gallier added, "anywhere in the County where there are septic tanks, we would be likely to see that waste." What Mr. Caulfield was trying to ascertain is if many of these people with septic tanks will be in the City within the next 15 to 20 years. The only part of the agreement that Mr. Caulfield has problems with is that when we reach our capacity, "we shut them off." Mike Smith assured Mr. Caulfield that "this is a safety valve in case we get caught in a bind. The way we expand treatment plant capacity, it probably would not happen," he added. Mr. Caulfield thought it was important to bring this point up for discussion because he is inclined to think that the wording is somewhat strong. He doesn't see us shutting them down. Mr. Gallier explained that part of the rationale for that is although we are allowing these people to come in and use the system, they have not purchased capacity in our capital plant through the payment of development fees. Mr. Caulfield wanted a clarification on no. 7 at the bottom of p. 4 of Mr. Gallier's memo which reads, "The County agrees to cooperate with the City in the regulation of all haulers whose actions might jeopardize the City's waste treatment system." Mr. Gallier provided an example of this. "Let's say we have a problem with a load that comes in," he began. We want to have our Industrial Waste Specialist contact a County health official and accompany him or her out to where the hauler says the waste was picked up. If he picked it up in good faith from a resident and the resident accidentally or for some other reason, put something in to create a problem, "we want to make sure the County will cooperate with us." Essentially, the City has no authority outside the City limits. Page 7 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Henry Caulfield wondered whether we shouldn't require that the licensed haulers in this program, use City facilities. If it were cheaper for them to carry the waste to Greeley, for example, could this be a problem if enough haulers were to take this option? Dave Stewart cited the anti-trust suite when this was attempted with the solid waste haulers in the City. MaryLou Smith asked how much the fee is now to dump into the lagoons. The an- swer was 1 112 cents per gal. "Is it going to be a problem jumping from 1 112 cents to 5 cents," she asked. Dave Stewart explained that the fee is only 30% of the total cost. He also pointed out that in Weld County you can't dispose of your septic wastes. They have been land -applying all this time and the State won't permit that. On the question of cost he suggested, "Can't we charge a tap charge or put that into the capital costs?" Tom Gallier responded that the tricky thing about that is who owns the capacity? Are you selling the capacity to a hauler and if so what obligation does he have to people within the County? Mr. Stewart replied that the City could sell it to the County and they would turn it over to the City. Mr. Gallier contends that if they were to do that, the cost could be substantial. Mr. Caulfield suggested that what Dave Stewart proposed is worth investigating. MaryLou Smith wanted further clarification of the costs. Mr. Gallier explained that you don't clean out a septic tank like you generate sewage. The average customer may pay $120 to $150 per year for sewage treatment service from the City. If you clean a septic tank once a year you will probably pay about that. This proposal probably represents $40 to $50 of the cost of cleaning that system out. It is still a fairly good deal. Even though it may be cheaper at the metro -Denver system, you would still have transportation and labor costs to dispose of it there. Tom Sanders also agreed with Dave Stewart's proposal of charging the County a single capital cost under some kind of agreement. Mr. Gallier said he thinks the County would be happy to have confirmed capacity. Dr. Boyd asked if there are concerns about people secretly dumping their wastes in streams or on farmland, etc. Mr. Gallier answered that it hasn't been occurring at this point, but this may become a problem when the County shuts down the landfill to these wastes. Dr. Grigg commented that it seems handling wastes falls between the County's and City's responsibility. When we talk about sand traps and grease traps, these are wastes that don't fall into the wastewater category, but if we adopt practices and procedures that make it more expensive for businesses to get rid of their wastes, or impossible, then it is going to have some impacts on certain kinds of businesses in Larimer County. It is his opinion that we ought to do what we can to facilitate waste management and that the County include waste disposal and handling for the good of the business climate. It almost seems there should be an impact statement that would go with this as to how these businesses may be impacted. MaryLou Smith and Dave Stewart voiced their agreement. Page 8 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Dr. Grigg inquired about the pre-treatment program with regard to CSU. "How do we know that there is nothing hazardous coming through," he added. Mike Smith related that the City's pre-treatment section does sampling there but, "we aren't completely certain that nothing hazardous is coming through." He went on to say that the City tries to monitor but there are so many places on campus where hazardous wastes could be dumped. He understands that they are developing a policy to take their wastes to a special site. Dr. Grigg proposed that it is time for a renewed educational effort on campus because many there are not aware of how to handle these wastes. "They need to know what their responsibilities are," he stressed. Dr. Grigg contends that if we really did a good job of pre-treatment including, places like CSU, and if we want to attract new high tech. industries, there must be some plan for ultimate disposal that is convenient and economical. We ought to be looking at that at the same time we are initiating controls, he advised. Mr. Smith related that the County's Hazardous Waste Committee, with representa-tives from the City, is looking at many of those options, because they realize that it relates to the economic development issue. MaryLou Smith proposed that the Water Board recommend that an economic impact statement accompany the proposed agreement with the County. With regard to CSU, Mr. Caulfield suggested that the staff prepare, in history and memo form, what is the background, what problems exist, what are the City's understandings with CSU currently, and any other relevant information. Then there could be a follow-up discussion at a future date focusing on the problem of CSU. Mr. Smith cited the pre-treatment section's innovative program called "Hi-Lo Silver," where they made contacts with businesses that could be discharging silver into the system. They gave the potential dischargers options on what to do with the silver. Since the program, there has been a noticeable decrease in the silver content in the system. A program like this might also be effective with CSU, he said. Mr. Gallier pointed out that one of the positions that was identified to be budgeted by this program, was an industrial waste inspector. Part of staff's idea was that as that person had free time available, he/she would report to the Environmental Services Division Manager and the Pre-treatment Supervisor, which would increase the manpower for education in this area. Dr. Grigg suggested that the City require CSU to identify areas where quantities of hazardous materials are used. There probably wouldn't be that many, and a procedure could be set up perhaps with their facilities people for inspections. E Page 9 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Henry Caulfield summarized the sense of the meeting which was supportive of what is being proposed for the septic tank waste disposal problem. The Board would suggest, however, that the economic impact of this plan be investigated as well as discussions with the County regarding the disposal of waste that won't be handled through the City's wastewater treatment system, when the County landfill no longer accepts semi -solid wastes. Staff Reports Mike Smith asked if there were any questions or comments about any of a number of handouts that were included in the Water Board packets this month. Mr. Smith announced that outside legal counsel -is filing opposition to Thornton's filings on the Poudre River. Paul Eckman and the Greeley City Attorney are opposing the claims of the U.S. Government on the Poudre River where they have filed for instream flows that would affect the Rockwell site. The Government is saying their rights would be senior to the conditional decrees the City has on Rockwell. Paul Eckman is also filing objections to a number of filings on the Michigan River that may impact the Michigan Ditch operation. He is also filing a statement of opposition on the Division of Wildlife filing on Watson Lake. Mr. Smith remarked that the City doesn't currently have a problem with it but we want to make certain that the Division of Wildlife "doesn't expand the use of what they are doing." Henry Caulfield had a question about the memo from Mike Shimmin regarding "Fort Collins -- New Water Rights -- Meeting of Colorado Water Conservation Board," on p. 3 where it says, --- "whether the City would be interested in having the Board file minimum flow rights on this segment." - namely the segment within the City. It is also suggested that if the City were to do this that they recommend it at a meeting of the Conservation Board. Mr. Caulfield discussed this with Dennis Bode and Paul Eckman. He considers it to be a complicated question. He asked if there was any point in going into it at this time. Mr. Smith said the City is very concerned about proceeding with the option of having the Conservation Board file for minimum instream flow rights through Fort Collins which may interfere with exchanges that may be necessary in the future. Mr. Smith added that the City isn't certain they want to do this, and if the Conservation Board takes it upon themselves to do it, the City would probably object. Professor Caulfield's and Dr. Evan's recollections on this matter were that Ward Fischer had filed objections to this in the past because it interfered with exchanges among the ditch companies. Some of the exchange agreements were merely "gentlemen's agreements," and thus not legally binding. Mr. Caulfield recalled that there was a statute passed that enabled future exchanges to be made legally. In about 1978, when he was employed by Ward Fischer, Paul Eckman remembered representing the City at a Conservation Board meeting where "we were asking them to shorten the stretch that they were asking for minimum stream flow. They took it under advisement at the time and later did that." Mr. Eckman didn't recall a statute, however. Page 10 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 Mike Smith believes that Henry Caulfield is correct about the statute. Paul Eckman pointed out further that "we want to maintain a line of communication and have our input on their filing." Mr. Smith announced that staff has invited Larry Simpson to the March board meeting. He will update the Board on Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District activities. Uli Kappas from the Colorado Water and Power Authority has indicated a desire to talk to the Board at an upcoming meeting about the possibility of more modest water projects on the Poudre, as compared to larger projects. Henry Caulfield called the Board's attention to a new publication called "Water Market Update," that was distributed to all Board members in their packets. He and other members were impressed with this first effort. Mr. Smith said that staff will continue to provide copies of these to the Board on a regular basis. According to Henry Caulfield, with Larry Simpson coming to our next meeting and having gone through the Thornton exercise, one of the things we have a great interest in, is the question of whether the NCWCD changes its rules either for the sub -district or district and makes water available outside of District boundaries. The District is likely to be under a great deal of pressure as the months and years go by with respect to this. Mr. Caulfield talked with Mr. Simpson who is trying to determine how to handle this problem. They have an incentive to do something particular in terms of the Sub -district because that is high cost water; and some cities would like to get rid of it for use else- where. Mr. Caulfield contends that, whatever changes are made, Fort Collins needs to make certain that those changes don't violate our interests. If the Denver -Metro area could acquire CBT water, the price would be quite different from what it is now, and the availability may be different as well. It seems to Mr. Caulfield that we need to establish a process which isn't just talking to Mr. Simpson, but a process where we could have discussions between the City and the NCWCD Board to protect our long term interests. He proposed that the President of the Water Board, with the consent of the Board, send a letter to the Chairman of the District saying that we anticipate future problems that will require far more contact, discussion, and deliberation between the City and the District, and we request that they establish a process that will allow this to happen. Mr. Caulfield thinks this process is very important because, to some extent, that Board has been operating without a lot of input from the cities. Larry Simpson informed Mr. Caulfield that Water Board members are welcome to attend their Board's work sessions which occur 8 times a year and are open to anyone. Neil Grigg thinks this is a good idea, but that there is a possible alternative. Larry Simpson has mentioned the possibility of creating a metropolitan sub -district to serve the northern tier. Dr. Grigg suggested including in the letter that the District devote a work session to a joint session between the Water Board and staff and the Northern District Board and their key staff. At that work session Larry Simpson and his staff could present Y Page 11 Water Board Minutes February 20, 1987 their thinking and alternatives about serving the Northern District. Mr. Caulfield thinks it would be premature to mention this in a letter. Dr. Grigg modified his suggestion to just asking their response to the Thornton issue. Mr. Caulfield added that when he and Norm Evans discussed writing a letter, they thought it would be good to send copies to Loveland and Greeley, so they could see if they too have an interest in relating better with the District. Dennis Bode mentioned that the Windy Gap Committee, because of past problems of communication with the Board, is planning to meet with the District Board at an upcoming work session. Mr. Caulfield said he would take the amendment Dr. Grigg has suggested to be included in the letter. Mike Smith commented that it might be appropriate for Mr. Caulfield and Dr. Evans to talk with Larry Simpson and allow him to take the lead in suggesting that and inviting us to a joint work session. Mr. Smith related that Nancy Gray, a Fort Collins representative on the District Board, has been very responsive to initiating more involvement with the City and has been very active in that regard. Perhaps she would have some preference about how to approach this situation. Mr. Caulfield said that all of these suggestions would be taken under consideration. Other Business Henry Caulfield announced that the "Policy" Committee will be meeting to review the "Water Policy" report on Friday, February 27, at 1:30 at the Service Center. Mary Lou Smith asked if there was a date set for the Water Board/staff workshop. Molly Nortier replied that a date of April 9 has been tentatively set but has not been confirmed by the consultant. There is a possibility that we may have to choose another date, if the consultant has a conflict. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Water Boa d Secretary