Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/19/1993WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 3:00 - 4:35 P.M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Neil Grigg, President; Tom Sanders, Vice President (arrived at 4:30); MaryLou Smith; Ray Herrmann; Terry Podmore; Mark Casey; Tim Dow; Paul Clopper; Tom Brown Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Tom Gallier, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier Guests Henry Caulfield, Former Water Board President Gene Schleiter, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reid, Citizen Observer John Barthelow, Citizen Observer Members Absent Dave Stewart, Dave Frick (excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Welcome President Grigg welcomed former president of the Water Board Henry Caulfield to the meeting, as well as other visitors. Minutes Tim Dow moved that the minutes of January 15, 1993 be approved as distributed. After a second from Paul Clopper, the Board voted unanimously to accept the minutes. The Forest Service Special Use Permit at Joe Wright Reservoir issue was not listed on the agenda. Tim Dow requested that staff bring the Board up to date on that topic under other business. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 2 %!datee Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Gene Schleiter distributed copies of the latest snow/precipitation update from the SNOTEL sites. He reported that snow depths aren't exceptional yet, but in the last month it is up 7 percentage points from where it was in January. The entire north/northwest region remains at about 90- 94%. In the southern parts of the state, the percentages increased to around 129-130%. Over the last month we have seen a slight overall increase of about 5-6%. As of this morning, storage in Granby is 248,125 ac-ft. That is roughly about 10,000 ac-ft more than a year ago. Horsetooth is at 124,000, and Carter's storage is 104,000. Carter is actually a little lower, and Horsetooth is slightly higher. System -wide we are about 10,000 ac-ft better than we were a year ago. The District hopes to have Horsetooth up to the maximum that they are going to fill this year, and "we're not anticipating going up to a maximum level," he stated. Horsetooth will probably be within 5-6 ft. of being totally full, and "we feel that's adequate to meet our demands." he added. Carter will probably be within 4 feet of being max. Mike Smith asked when they anticipate that happening. At Horsetooth the District is targeting the first of May, Mr. Schleiter replied, and at Carter they plan for the first of March. Pole Hill Power Plant will be shut down for 30 days for inspection. During that time period the District will be bringing water back out of Carter to keep the flows coming north into Horsetooth. "You don't do that very often," Mr. Smith remarked. "No, it's not very economical when you pay the pumping costs to put it in Carter and then bring it back the other way," he responded, "but with the Pole Hill Plant going down, we don't have a choice." Terry Podmore asked to have the reservoir capacities put in terms of percentages. Horsetooth has a capacity of 152,000 and Carter's is 113,000, so the percentage for Carter would be about 93-94%, and Horsetooth will be close to 90%, Mr. Schleiter replied. Paul Clopper asked if the incremental percentages above average translate directly from snowpack into expected runoff. "No," Mr. Schleiter answered. There are a number of factors that will be included in the runoff. If you are emerging from a dry year, and you have a very high snow pack (you could have 110% snowpack) you may only forecast an 89-90% runoff, because the ground is going to absorb that much more. On the other hand, "if you get some early moisture and get a good snow pack, it can go either way." There are a number of factors that go into that determination, he concluded. Dr. Grigg asked if there was anything new on the pipeline. The District has nine firm commitments to participate in the project, Mr. Schleiter began. Probably the most significant of late is that Public Service has agreed to participate in the pipeline out to their Pawnee Plant. The two entities that are still questionable are Erie and the City of Longmont. Erie may still participate, but hasn't made a final decision. Longmont wants to participate in the modification of the outlet works at Carter Lake, but they don't want to be a part of the pipeline at this time. The District Board took action Friday on selecting a modified west pipeline route because of WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 3 some environmental concerns. Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to the District stating that they were concerned that two rare Lady's Tresses orchids were found in the St. Vrain area. Also the pipeline route would cross part of the City of Boulder's open space area. In addition, there are concerns that one of the largest heron areas in the state, located 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile from,where the pipeline is proposed, could be impacted. "Is it correct that the District received a permit from the Water Conservation Board on a grant or loan?" Dr. Grigg inquired. "Yes, that's in the CWCB bill, which is a part of their funding request," Mr. Schleiter replied. There is $6 million in that bill which would be used to help Fort Lupton and other communities like them that don't have bonding capabilities. "Is it a loan or a grant?" Dr. Grigg wanted to know. There is some question about that. If it is a loan, some of those communities will not have the capability to repay it, and whether they can get a grant "in this day and age, is doubtful," he said. Per Dosed Surplus Water Rental Rates Water Board members received copies of the proposed surplus water rental rates for 1993. The background information stated that each year after 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. The proposed rates are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments, and anticipated supply and demand conditions. The rental prices for CBT, North Poudre, and Water Supply and Storage Company shares are based primarily on market rental rates, since there is an active rental market for these shares. With the very limited rental markets for the southside ditches, the rental prices are based primarily on assessment rates. Andy Pineda provided background information on the 1992 rental rates, explained the changes that have been made in the rental guidelines this year, and described the rental rates that staff has proposed for 1993. Mr. Pineda reported that last year the Utility rented nearly 19,000 acre feet of surplus water to area customers, which generated a revenue of just under $255,000. We accommodated about 150 people, he said. Last year when this item was taken to the City Council, there was an interest in trying to define the process more clearly and make it more equitable to all customers that rent from the City. The past procedure allowed customers who had some history renting water with the City somewhat more preference than a new customer. With that concern in mind, staff prepared a new set of rental guidelines which the Utility plans to use this year. The new guidelines were reviewed by the Water Supply Committee in December, and also have been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. The new guidelines were sent to all the customers who in the last two years have requested rental water from the City. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Pineda then distributed copies of the surplus water supply rental information that had been sent out. The sheet describes the process for submitting a request for water, the rental process for requests received January 1 through March 31, the rental process for requests received after March 31, how to request additional rental water, and other pertinent information. He focused on the rental process for requests received January 1 through March 31. Staff set up that length of time particularly for what they call their primary list period when people call and register a request for water. "We chose that period because, once that time period is up, it allows us to look at what the present water supply will be, to assess things like run-off and how much water we expect from the NCWCD, and to compile our rental requests to see how many of those we can meet," he explained. Basically, he thinks that most of the requests will fall under line number 1 on the sheet which says: "Requests total less than estimated surplus supply." For most of the ditch company shares the City has available, we usually have more available than we have requests for, he stressed. In the event that we have a dry year and have a shortage in number of shares we have available to rent, we can run into a situation where we have more requests than we have water to rent. If that happens, and the requests are just slightly above it, we will prorate the shares. For example, if we had 160 shares to rent, and we had 200 requests, we would probably give everyone just 80% of what they asked for. "Typically that's enough to keep people happy," he assured the Board. However, if we have significantly more requests than supply, and occasionally we can run into that situation, we will plan to use a random allocation procedure, or a lottery type system to allocate the water. "We will work hard to try to avoid the situation where it would come down to something like that. From past experience, we have found that if the ratio gets too low between the amount they will actually get and what they request, many times they won't rent the water at all," he said. Anyone calling in after April 1st will fall into a late request period. At that time staff will meet requests on a first come fist served basis. Even if they miss the early period, staff thinks there is still a good chance they can get water from the City if they need it. Dr. Grigg asked if the number assigned is a random number off the computer. "I think that is probably the way we will handle it," Mr. Pineda replied. Mr. Pineda then referred to the table of water assessments and rental rates proposed for this year, included in the packets. For the most part the rental rates are the same as a year ago. Most of the rentals are in the CBT units, the North Poudre shares, Water Supply and Storage Company shares, and the Warren Lake shares. Those prices essentially reflect the going market rate for those rentals. The majority of the other ditch companies are the Southside ditch companies. Staff left those at the assessment or slightly above the assessment. This year the Utility has added two new ditch systems to the rental list: Sherwood Reservoir Co. and the WATER BOARD NIINUTFS February 19, 1993 Page 5 Sherwood Irrigation Co. Those are related to the Arthur Ditch system on their lower end. The reason we have those on the list is because we have an agreement with the Poudre R-1 School District for the new high school whose landscaping will be irrigated with raw water. They have acquired shares in Sherwood Irrigation Co. and Sherwood Reservoir. We will accept those shares and rent them back to Poudre R-1, for the new high school. Staff recommends that the following rental rates be adopted: NCWCD Water (CBT) North Poudre Irrigation Co. Water Supply and Storage Co. Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. New Mercer Ditch Co. Larimer County Canal No. 2 Arthur Irrigation Co. Warren Lake Reservoir Co. Joe Wright Reservoir Water Sherwood Res. Co. Sherwood Irrigation Co. =19L'i'7t)Q�riI��T3T� $ 18.00/ac-ft 85.00/share 1,800.00/share 115.00/share 250.00/share 200.00/share 10.00/share 120.00/share 18.00/ac-ft 5.00/share 275.00/share For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the remaining yield or the prevalent market price of the water stock being rented. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend the proposed surplus water rental rates to the City Council. Marylou Smith seconded the motion. President Grigg asked for discussion. Mark Casey asked how the rates that are set according to the market are established. Mr. Pineda said he talks to his counterparts in the Cities of Greeley, Loveland and Longmont and gets their reactions on the going rate for CBT water, for example. "We will usually be in the same ball park," he said. Many of those cities rent by the unit; we always rent CBT water by the acre foot, he explained. Generally for some of the major ditch companies, like North Poudre and WSSC, there is quite a lot of market activity out there upon which to base the rates. "We try to keep the rates in the range where we can't be accused of price gouging." Mr. Pineda had mentioned earlier that most of the water the City rented last year was from the first three on the list, and Tom Brown wondered if the other one was Arthur or Warren Lake. "Warren Lake," Mr. Pineda replied. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 6 Terry Podmore asked what the acre feet per share is from the two Sherwood companies. For the Sherwood Reservoir Co., it is .634 ac-ft per share, and the Sherwood Irrigation Co. is just a carrier ditch. It's a company that you have to own shares in to run water in that lateral, he explained. They also have a small water right on Spring Creek. Tom Brown compared the 19,000 ac-ft which we rented with the $255,000 of revenue that was generated, and he came out with about $13.50 per ac-ft, which is lower than prices for some of the companies we rent the water from. Is that because of the other companies on the list? Mr. Pmeda confirmed that the water from several of the companies lower the overall average. He also pointed out that the number of acre feet rented is based on the City's conversion factors and reflects an average yield. President Grigg called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to recommend the proposed surplus water rental rates. Review of Water Conservation Annual Report Jim Clark began by saying that the term review might be liberal for what he plans to do. His intentions were to be available for comments and questions from the Board on the Water Conservation Annual report they received in their packets. He explained that in general the document details the current status of each of the 12 conservation measures included in the Demand Management Resolution. Also included in the document are a status report on the volunteer metering program, information about the water conservation research grant that is being implemented, and figures on what our demand actually has been. "You probably noticed, if you looked at what our demand actually was in 1992, that we have achieved our goals for the year 2009; in fact we blew them out of the water!" The point to strongly emphasize here is that these figures have not been adjusted for weather factors. That's what staff will be working on in the next year, so "we can establish some meaning to these numbers," he said. There is no question that the fact that we only had three days over 90 degrees last summer, and that our peak was in May, had a strong bearing on these "big dips on the graph," he stressed. The question staff needs to answer is how much was due to weather, and how much was due to water conservation efforts. Next year that information will be available, he concluded. MaryLou Smith, Chair of the Conservation and Public Education Committee, reported that her Committee met prior to the Board meeting, and reviewed the report again, and the Committee feels very comfortable with the progress that has been made this past year. Tim Dow said it was a good report, and that he liked the policy elements. He especially liked tying water conservation in with the City's Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). WATER BOARD M NUTES February 19, 1993 Page 7 Zero Interest Loan Program Draft Ordinance Wendy Williams reported that the information the Board received in their packets was reviewed by the Conservation and Public Education Committee, and in fact was an outgrowth of some of the work they had been doing. The Utility currently has a zero interest loan program in place, but it is limited to service line replacement loans. We have been requested to look at expanding that program to include some water conservation sorts of things, she said. We looked at a number of water conservation measures and decided that at this time, the only one we wanted to apply it to was replacing 3.5 gallon toilets with ultra low flush models, she explained. She went on to say that the Utility has also expanded this program to include replacing leaking pipes or plumbing fixtures. In the original zero interest loan program, you could only apply for the loan in the process of being metered. We have since decided that it is in the best interest of the Utility to make the program available to people who have a corroded service line, so they could go back and replace it. Those are the major changes to the existing program. In 1992 we processed 17 loans under this program, she continued. The average loan was for about $900, and the Utility loaned a total of $18,000. Approximately $20,000 has been set aside for replacement of service lines, and another $20,000 was set aside for repairing leaking plumbing fixtures and upgrading toilets. Ms. Williams explained that the draft ordinance will need to go to City Council because there are enough changes to the original program that the Council needs to decide that there is a broader public purpose served for a program like this, so we aren't considered to be making a donation due to the loss of interest money. We have some maximums set on the extended program which we didn't have in the earlier loan program, she related. The maximum loan amount for service fine replacement is $1500; for interior plumbing it's $1,000; and $500 is the maximum for the installation of ultra low flush toilets. While it is a zero interest loan program, she continued, we are proposing to collect an administrative fee, but that would be only on loans greater than $500, so that's basically just the service line replacement loans. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the draft ordinance to extend the zero interest loan program. Terry Podmore seconded the motion. President Grigg asked for discussion. Dr. Grigg reviewed how the zero interest loan program came about. In April of 1992 the Council approved the Demand Management Resolution and directed the Water Board Conservation and Public Education Committee to develop a water conservation zero interest loan WATER BOARD MINVI'ES February 19,1993 Page 8 program, a draft of which we are reviewing today. The next step for the Council will be to approve the loan program with the guidelines included in the information distributed in the packets. Ms. Williams again reviewed the changes from the original ordinance. Dr. Grigg asked how much interest the City has lost. Ms. Williams said that staff estimates if we had to borrow the $20,000 for 12 months, that would be a discounted interest cost to the City, assuming 5.5%, of about $850. Dr. Grigg observed that our cost for implementing this program is not overwhelming when you consider everything that's going into it. Tom Brown asked who is eligible for a loan; are there any financial qualifications? The only financial qualification, and it isn't truly that, is that you can't have been delinquent on paying monthly utility bills for the last five years, Ms. Williams replied. Income level is not a consideration, she added. MaryLou Smith added that "staff s and the Committee's presumption was that the amounts are low enough that those who will want to take advantage of this are primarily those who are. low income and really need to have a loan in order to do this." Staff reported to the Committee the need for a loan program to repair leaking pipes and plumbing fixtures. Mark Casey asked if the loans last year were all for service lines or leaky plumbing fixtures. Ms. Williams said the program last year was limited to service line replacements. On leaky plumbing fixtures, what does that include? he asked. There really aren't any limitations for interior plumbing, she said. "What happens if you get requests above the $20,000 you have set aside?" Mr. Dow asked. Ms. Williams said the ordinance states that it is limited to the availability of funds, "but we can certainly transfer money between the two zero -interest programs". Since this is going to the Council, Mr. Podmore began, one of the things we need to be aware of, in terms of what's eligible, is that it does not include some of the expressed views of some of the Council for some of the conservation measures that could be included, but we have elected not to include, so we may get some discussion on that when they take it up. "What was the rationale for not having a maximum income level?" Mr. Dow asked. The City could take some heat for loaning money with no interest to someone who has a large income, he said. When the Committee discussed it, they saw it as a conservation incentive, and so it didn't matter what your income level was; it still benefitted the system as a whole to promote conservation, Ms. Williams responded. "And from a practical point of view," MaryLou Smith added, "we felt like the amounts were going to be low enough that there would be very few people who would bother with this loan if they had a high income. Also, considering the process of having to get financial information from each applicant, it would cost us so much time, we thought it wasn't worth it," she explained. • WATER BOARD AIEWTES February 19, 1993 Page 9 Ms. Smith wanted to explain a little more about what Terry Podmore brought up: the conservation measures that aren't included in the zero interest loan program. She said the Committee had looked at several ideas for other lands of improvements that would perhaps help us to conserve more water, and "it isn't that we didn't think those weren't worth looking at, but we wanted these first; later we may look at some others," she said. We are doing some things in the other areas of the demand management resolution that we think are more important, and will save more water than some of the items that came before the Committee for zero interest loans. Paul Clopper mentioned that someone who removes their blue grass lawn and puts in water conserving grass or plants is an example. "That's a good example," Ms. Smith responded, "and we certainly are open to looking at those possibilities later." Ms. Smith also commented that another good example would be someone who might want to amend their soil to increase the water retention capabilities. "We put that one off because we are studying that right now to determine, from a practical standpoint, if that really does help to conserve water." Tim Dow had a question about the third sentence of paragraph three on page two: "Payment to a licensed plumber will be made after meter is set, but not later than 45 days after work is completed if utility is unable to schedule installation before that time." Does the actual distribution of the funds go to the contractor that actually does the work or is it to the homeowner? It goes directly to a licensed plumber, Ms. Williams replied. Mark Casey asked if the repayment is included in the customer's monthly bill. "That was the intent when the program was first set up, but unfortunately our utility billing system currently is not able to do that, but that is a long term goal," Ms. Williams explained. Customers are currently issued payment coupons. Mr. Casey thinks the program is well thought through and he wondered if in addition to foregoing the interest or the cost of capital, there certainly must be some administration charge in terms of the time involved in processing these loans. The administration fee is set at $25.00, Ms. Williams replied, and it's probably a little low. "We were concerned that the fee not be so high as to negate the zero interest concept." Mr. Casey also had a concern about the loan for leaky plumbing fixtures. He thinks it is more broadly construed than is necessary. For example, would a hot water heating system qualify? No, Ms. Williams answered. The fact that's it's leaking would not mean that we would replace your hot water heater; the pipes to it, but not the heater. President Grigg called for the question. The motion to recommend approval of the zero interest loan program as extended, passed unanimously. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 10 Staff Reoorts Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that treated water use for January was 1449 ac-ft., and that was 95% of the average projection. Joint Meeting with Water Boards from Greeley and Loveland Mike Smith said that hosting the event is between Loveland and Fort Collins, and he plans to volunteer Fort Collins. That was agreeable to the Water Board. Water Board Annual Report President Grigg commended Molly Nortier for "compiling the Water Board Annual report with great skill." Ms. Nortier noted that the report is sent to Council members and is published in its entirety in the Water & Wastewater Utility Annual Report. Committee ft= Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance Tom Gallier prepared a brief update of current legislation. "Most of the items that we had some concerns about have already been killed," he remarked. One item that is still alive is SB93-180, the Basin of Origin Bill. It requires the evaluation of the impact of trans -mountain and out of county water transfers on the local tax base, and payment of mitigation fees as ordered by water court where appropriate. Mr. Gallier explained that it has been heavily amended. It has made it out of committee, but now has been sent back to the Appropriations Committee. He went on to discuss SB93-130 which clarifies the definition of water enterprise funds for purposes of Amendment 1. "Any City that enters into a legitimate water enterprise should be exempt from the Amendment 1 requirements," he said. Senator Norton's intent was that all water utilities meet this statutory definition. Whether it's going to work that way, we're not sure, he said, but the intention is there to simplify the process. As far as he knows, the bill is currently out of committee. Mike Smith said the City Attorney is not sure that the legislation would help. "He hasn't made a final decision --it keeps getting amended --but he doesn't appear to be very optimistic. That's why the City is still proceeding with the Charter amendment. Mr. Gallier agrees that "it's a tough call." Tim Dow commented that it's probably a good bill, but it may not make any difference. "In a way you've got the Legislature interpreting what Amendment 1 says, and the court may say, 'that's not for you folks to do; that's for the court to decide,'" he said. WATER BOARD NENUTES February 19,1993 Page 11 Mr. Gallier explained the format for the legislative updates he will be providing. First he will include the bill number and a brief description. Next under five columns labeled staff recommendation, Water Board recommendation, Council position, NCWCD position and CWC position, he lists if there is a recommendation or what position each group has taken: N - Neutral; ? - no position taken; S - support; SWA - support with amendments; and O - oppose. President Grigg asked if there will be a bill to re -organize the Water Quality Control Division. "No, but there may be some interest in turning the whole thing back to the EPA," Mr. Gallier responded. Mr. Smith added, "or there may not be a Water Quality Control Division." Mr. Gallier pointed out that the Joint Budget Committee Resolution sounds like it may include wastewater as well as water. "Yes, the JBC has made that recommendation," Mr. Smith agreed. He went on to say that they are recommending that basically those programs not be funded, and be returned to the federal government, in response to the budget crisis. Mr. Gallier explained that the water and wastewater programs are only partially supported by General Funds. Also, the legislature has never provided the full General Fund subsidies they agreed to several years ago. The Clean Water program is funded by EPA grants, General Funds, and permit fees. The Drinking Water program is funded by EPA grants and General Funds. "The best guess is that most programs will survive, with some increase of cash funding to reduce or eliminate General Fund subsidies." "The biggest potential change would be that water quality programs would return to EPA," Mr. Smith stated. Mr. Gallier added, "unless they (the state) adopt pretty extensive permit charges and fees, etc." Dr. Grigg asked what that might cost us. The current wastewater permit fee, for both plants is about $10,000, Mr. Gallier replied. That may increase to about $20,000. "We did an early evaluation before the legislative session began, and thought the new water plant permit fee would be $15,000 to $20,000, but it now appears it will be around $5,000. The total impact would be an increase of around $15,000 if these estimates hold," he concluded. Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith included her report in the Water Conservation Annual Report and Zero Interest Loan Program Draft Ordinance agenda items. Engineering No report Councit/Water Board Water Quality Policy Committee Tim Dow, a member of the Committee, reported that the Committee met the previous evening for a couple of hours. The idea of the Committee is to come up with a policy recommendation to the Council as to how extensive and continuous the efforts of the Utility ought to be in treatment and testing and things of that nature. Staff was asked to come up with a draft policy WATER BOARD NM4UTES February 19, 1993 Page 12 for the Committee to review. Water Board members besides Tim Dow are Tom Sanders and Paul Clopper. Council members are Loren Maxey, Gerry Horak and Bob Winokur. Mr. Dow said that he thinks the general thrust of the policy will be to continue on the course that we have been on, which is to do as much testing as we are able to do technically, and keep several steps ahead of the standards. ftional Water Supply Strategy IT a P Forest Service Permit Renewal for Joe Wright Reservoir Mike Smith reported that since the last Water Board meeting, the Forest Service has extended the forest use permit at Joe Wright for a year, which means it is extended until January 31, 1994. The Forest Service has asked for a formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7, the "Threatened and Endangered Species Act." That process could take 3 or 4 months. Staff continues to communicate with the Forest Service to determine what can be done to shorten the process and bring some resolution to the issue. Some of the other communities involved are looking at other options. They have discussed those options at some of the meetings staff has attended. In the first week of March a technical group consisting of people from each of the communities, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service will be working on assisting the Forest Service in completing their biological assessment that they will turn over to the F&WS. Mr. Smith explained that generally the Forest Service conducts a biological assessment, and gives that to the F&WS. They do a study and pass their opinion on to the FS. The Forest Service isn't bound by that opinion, but it carries a lot of weight. At the end of the year, the FS had to work quickly on the biological assessment, and when they gave it to the F&WS, they said it wasn't quite what they had in mind, so they returned it to the FS to complete. Part of the job of the technical committee will be to provide information to the FS, so the assessment can be completed and submitted to the F&WS. Dennis Bode will be the City's technical representative on the committee. If they are using section 7, what are the endangered species? Ray Herrmann wanted to know. They listed 6 or 7 species of animals, and a number of plants; the Lady's Tress orchid is one and some clover, and also some downstream species, the whooping crane, Wyoming Toad, Greenback cutthroat trout, etc. The F&WS sent the FS a list of what they thought the species probably would be in this area. The FS did a quick assessment of that just using available literature. What triggers the formal process is when they can say there "may" be an effect, and that means further study. • WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Smith said if anyone is interested in receiving some background on the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, information is available at the Utility office. Mr. Smith emphasized that it is still the hope of the City that this can be resolved without somebody losing. Perhaps the Forest Service will compromise a little, and we can eventually arrive at a solution. Tim Dow asked if the concern was more with the stretch below Joe Wright Creek immediately below the outlet from that point where the creek goes into the River, or is the concern the entire river? "That's a good question, because it is somewhat confusing," Mr. Smith replied. "Our understanding is that it's Joe Wright Creek right below the dam," although they are raising issues that could involve a wide range of discussion. "Our emphasis is going to focus on Joe Wright Creek," he said, "although the F&W or the FS may try to open it up." There has been considerable work done already on the South Platte as far as endangered species. Tom Brown asked if the next impoundment on Chambers Lake is a factor in this. "Chambers Lake is the next impoundment, but it doesn't have a special use permit that has expired," Mr. Smith responded. "But would it capture this extra water if we were to release it?" Mr. Brown continued. "Yes, the water in Joe Wright goes into Joe Wright Creek, into Chambers, and out of Chambers down to the Poudre River," Mr. Smith explained. "So if it's captured at Chambers, that's the end of the line in terms of any change," Mr. Brown remarked. "Actually, if you look at the stream system up there, not very far below the dam are some tributaries that feed the stream, and there is some pretty good volume just below the dam, and of course the dam leaks a little bit too," Mr. Smith said. He went on to say that it looks now like the Forest Service won't be doing any field studies on this. Everything is going to be resolved, from what we understand, by a "literature search." That could easily change, however, because the process could get delayed, where in June, July and August, some measurements, etc. could be taken up there. Mr. Smith stressed that the environmental assessments were made when the Reservoir was enlarged. The Forest Service, when they did the biological assessments, said that under the National Environmental Policy Act the City didn't have to go any further than that. There was a finding by the Interior Dept. that there was no impact. "That's frustrating because we have already gone through it once, and now we're having to revisit the whole thing," he said. "This discussion suggests," Dr. Grigg began, "that sometime we ought to have a briefing with a map giving the Water Board an opportunity to get familiar with the situation up there." Terry Podmore pointed out that there was a map in the handout. Dr. Grigg was proposing that it be an agenda item with corresponding information. Mr. Smith said staff will try to do that at either the March or April meeting. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19,1993 Page 14 MaryLou Smith said the letter on this subject that appeared in the Coloradoan with Dr. Grigg's signature "hit the mark." That was in response to the -Board's resolution, and Wendy Williams was responsible for the letter, Dr. Grigg pointed out. He added that Mike Smith had Loren Maxey review it so we were coordinated with the Council. Mr. Smith said there was also an article in the Triangle Review which was good but contained a few inaccuracies. MaryLou Smith said she was confused about this issue and the issue that the District Court judge ruled on having to do with instream flow. Dr. Grigg said that was the so called reserved rights case. Mike Smith explained that the Federal Reserved Rights Case was tried in Greeley a little over a year ago. The Federal government claimed that they had reserved rights on the forest. Fort Collins had reached agreement and stipulated out of the conflict, "so we weren't directly involved in the case, but it was certainly a precedent -setting case." The judge basically ruled that the Forest Service did not have those rights for various reasons, mostly factual. There weren't many legal reasons, just that the facts showed that the Forest Service wasn't entitled to those rights, and in the process the judge reprimanded the FS on some of their scientific procedures etc. Mr. Smith went on to say that it's not really connected to the special use permit although one of the elements in the case was that the Forest Service "had other means" of getting the flows, and special use permits were cited as one of those "means." He acknowledged that the case probably will be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. That court has to listen to it. The FS has the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they aren't required to hear it. Mr. Smith said the judge left some openings in his ruling that might indicate that had the FS presented the right information, the outcome of the case might have been different; "of course that's just speculation," he added. Paul Clopper pointed out that one of the major differences between the reserved rights case and the special use permit issues is that in the reserved rights case, aquatic habitat could not be argued. It was strictly channel maintenance flows and for favorable conditions of water flow. The aquatic habitat argument, relating to the reserved rights issue, was tried about 10 years ago in New Mexico, and that argument was disallowed. With the special use permit issue, however, aquatic habitat can be an issue. MaryLou Smith would like to have staff provide summaries that would inform the Board of what studies were done before we enlarged Ice Wright Reservoir assuring us that what we were doing there would not endanger not only aquatic habitat, but channel integrity, etc. "My understanding is that studies were done prior to the enlargement." Mr. Smith said there is a document that was published by the Bureau of Reclamation, Dept. of the Interior, which is similar to a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). In issuing this, the Bureau in their discussion noted that the biological assessment done by the FS didn't find anything that was alarming to prevent the enlargement of the reservoir. The document was WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 15 issued in the mid to late 70s. Mr. Smith said he will see that the Board gets a copy of it. Ms. Smith stressed that she would like to see more emphasis placed on the studies that were done before we were given permission to enlarge the reservoir. It disturbs her to have the public think that "we want the water" and the FS wants to "protect the environment. That isn't the situation at all," she insisted. President Grigg proposed that staff provide that information along with their briefing in the next couple of months. Ray Herrmann pointed out that there is nothing wrong with "changing the rules in mid stream", as long as the FS is required to do so by the U.S. Congress, whether the new legislation, previous to the FONSI or prior to the expansion, requires things now that were not required at the time of the expansion, "which I suspect is the argument that the Forest Service is making." "If that's the case it seems that there should be some compensation," MaryLou Smith contends. Mr. Smith said that in 1988 there was an executive order by then President Reagan, where he ordered the Attorney General to develop guidelines for all federal agencies on "takings of private property" according to the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Attorney General Meese did so, and it's still an issue as to whether water rights are considered private property, and if any federal agency "took" or deprived someone of that property that it might be against this executive order. It's not a Congressional law, but it is a guideline, so how much weight it has is unknown. Tom Brown said it has taken until very recently for tests of those guidelines to get through courts. He read recently that at least one of them was successful. Mark Casey asked about the Wilderness bill that Senators Brown and Wirth were sponsoring. Did that exclude the reserved water right issue? The current draft of that bill doesn't address that issue, Mr. Smith replied. Dr. Grigg brought up the report that staff provided to all Board members entitled "Systems Integration as a Water Supply Source for the Denver Metropolitan Area. "This is the kind of report I would recommend keeping as a resource, together with the Water Supply Policy," he said. He said that it is doubtful that we would have to deal with this specific document, because it is a conceptual report. He explained that this is the kind of report that will generate articles in the newspapers from time to time in which the message might be interpreted that there is plenty of water in the front range, "but they won't take any account for the fact that the water hasn't been integrated; everybody's just using their own." Regional Wastewater Service Issues JUKI= Dean Smith, the manager of the Boxelder Sanitation District recently invited President Grigg to meet with him to discuss issues from the point of view of the Boxelder District. "Of course there are a number of issues that the District is faced with, and there is a lot of history to all these Districts, and we have reviewed some of it at Board meetings previously," Dr. Grigg began. "In fact, I was reviewing with Dean Smith some of the work that Henry Caulfield had overseen in his terms as Water Board president." WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 16 Dr. Grigg told Dean Smith that he would relate to the Water Board some of the activities and priorities of the Boxelder Board. Prior to being selected as manager of the Boxelder District, Dean Smith had been a board member. To show some of the activities and functions of the Board, Dean Smith gave Dr. Grigg some monthly manager's reports from his district. They basically describe the break -down of equipment and facilities and financial issues in the District, and also show how he communicates with his board of directors. He apparently has a rather new board of directors, so not everybody who is on the board has a long history of the issues in the Boxelder District. Dean Smith related that he "has a tiger by the tail" on several things. For example, he thinks the pre-treatment issues that he has to contend with are very severe, perhaps even more complex than ours because his area contains a lot of smaller industries, and he doesn't have a large staff to prepare all of the papers that are needed for that. Dean Smith is also quite involved in dealing with the District's financial problems. As a small district, they have a different set of financial problems than we do, and that occupies a lot of his time. He is trying to put the district on a sound fiscal basis. Dean Smith told Dr. Grigg that he is very interested in cooperating with the City, and in the long term, to work out a plan for regional cooperation, and perhaps even move toward consolidation sometime in the future. There are so many issues relating to that, that he couldn't be specific. Some of the things we had discussed previously as a Board were some difficulties relating to economic development, hookups and water quality issues, Dr. Grigg recalled. "I didn't get into that with Dean Smith in any detail," he said, "because I'm not familiar with the specific instances." Dr. Grigg said that Dean Smith would be pleased to come to the Water Board any time to discuss these things with us if something specific came up. Tim Dow thinks it would be a good idea to meet with Dean Smith sometime in the future, "but before we do that, it might be helpful to have a presentation from staff on that situation and some of the long term issues, so we have the background on it." Dr. Grigg agreed, and added, "when that subject came up with Dean Smith, I said I would leave it up to Mike Smith to schedule those kinds of meetings, because we wouldn't want to invite someone unless the Board had time to be prepared." Ray Herrmann recalled that this came up a few years ago when it appeared that the City was moving towards an agreement with Boxelder. "Has that died down?" Before Boxelder separated from the management scheme they had with ELCO, Mike Smith began, the City and Boxelder were getting closer. There were a number of board members then who were interested in reaching some kind of an agreement. There were two board members who were mildly to strongly opposed to it. At that time the City attempted to initiate discussions and offers, even 0 WATER BOARD MINUTES February 19, 1993 Page 17 to the point of drafting resolutions and agreements, etc., but the process always seemed to be delayed. Once the District went on their own, negotiations stopped, and the board members that were friendly to the idea of consolidation or regional activities, resigned. They were concerned about liability of the board, and some of the issues that were being addressed. A third member resigned, and Dean Smith, who had been a board member, now manages the District, so they basically have a new board. They have spent most of the time since then trying to get settled. Mike Smith concluded that they "have their hands full running the District right now" and he doesn't think, even if they wanted to, that they are ready to talk. The City has basically put discussions on hold until the District is ready. Other Business Re -scheduling March Meeting Tim Dow pointed out that the regular March meeting falls during spring break. Because a number of Board members may have plans for spring break week, he thinks it would be good to re -schedule the meeting. The Board agreed to change the meeting to one week later, on Friday, March 26th. Discussion of Water Treatment Plant No. 1 and Wastewater Regional Plant in Natural Resources Minutes Dr. Grigg receives the Natural Resources minutes each month, and in the latest issue there was discussion about their continuing interest in future uses for Water Treatment Plant No. 1. They are also interested in the new regional wastewater treatment plant, and the proposed public access plan. There are several pages of minutes on those topics. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M.