Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/18/1992• WATER BOARD MINUTES December 18, 1992 3:00 - 5:25 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street City Council/Water Board Liaison Loren Maxey Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Tom Brown, Paul Clopper, Ray Herrmann, MaryLou Smith, Dave Stewart, Tim Dow Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Wendy Williams, Tom Gallier, Scott Harder, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier, and John Duval, Assistant City Attorney Guests Bruce Kroeker, Ted Zorich & Associates, Inc. John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, NCWCD George Reed, Citizen Observer, Kodak Colorado Laura Hairgrove, CSU Landscape Architect Student Members Absent Tent' Podmore, Mark Casey, Dave Frick (all excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Paul Clopper pointed out on page 3, paragraph 6, sentence 4 of the minutes that the word "dam" be changed to "reservoir." Dave Stewart moved that the minutes of November 20, 1992 be approved as corrected. Tom Sanders seconded the motion, and the Board agreed unanimously. Und=: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed snow precipitation information for the various basins. He said the data indicates that snow pack on the west and east slopes is about average. He reported that the ground generators have been running at various times for the precipitation enhancement program. Apparently the generators are still running today, so there must be enough potential in the clouds in that area that they can continue to seed. Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 2 Precipitation for November was at 1.14 inches within the District boundaries. The normal is about .56, so "we are at about 204% of average on precipitation." Granby is at 51% of capacity; Horsetooth is at 65%; Carter and Boulder are both at 48%, which means we are at 54% of capacity in the CBT system, and 93% of average. "We are in better shape at this time of year than we have been in along time," he said. Setting the quota at a conservative 60%, the carryover program, and a wet summer, all helped to improve our situation. The conserved inflow of Granby for November was 2340 Ac-ft. The water deliveries in 1992 for the District's fiscal year were 177,000 Ac-ft, which is 57% of what the full quota at 310,000 Ac-ft. could be. The District will carry over 77,899 Ac-ft that could be delivered next spring. If we get a good winter snowpack and if the precipitation enhancement generators "do us any good" on the western slope, our water supply could be increased for next year. He mentioned that the District has been conducting a power study at the pumping plant at Willow Creek. "As most of you know, that's a fairly old plant," he said. The District found that they could not start the Willow Creek pumps if the Adams Tunnel loop of the power grid was not in, and there seemed to be no reason why the power loop on that side should not carry the load. The consultants on the project checked the relays and found that 11 yeas ago the BOR actually wired the relays backwards. In those 11 years the start up has been slow, and now the reason for that has been identified. The District thinks they can make the correction for less than $10,000. He went on to say that last Friday the NCWCD Board passed an interim or conditional inclusion policy for subdivisions and for those types of entities that might be annexed within a city. For example, Estes Park wants to be included within the boundaries of the District. Until the District can learn how Amendment 1 affects them with regard to the mill levy, they will have to wait to determine the specifics of the inclusion policy. He pointed out that the Southeast district in Pueblo said they were going to raise their mill levy and Douglas Bruce, author of Amendment 1, threatened to take them to court. As a result they rescinded that resolution. The process of developing a memorandum of understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on the Carter Lake outlet is underway to do the design for a 325 cfs outlet to facilitate deliveries into the southern water supply pipeline. At this time there is far more capacity than we need, he said, but if we do need a second pipeline, or if we need additional capacity in the future, we'll have that part of the outlet designed. With that he ended his report. Review of Southside Ditches Water Rights Transfer According to the agenda item background information, the City of Fort Collins has been preparing for several years to transfer its South Side Ditch shares from agricultural use to municipal use, and to seek certain exchange rights which will make the City's water more useful Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 3 to it. It went on to say that legal counsel for the City has prepared a water rights application, which when submitted to water court, will initiate the formal process of getting water court approval. Staff presented this as an informational item, so no action is required by the water Board. Mike Smith reported that staff's intent was to file today in water court to transfer those ditch company rights from agriculture to municipal use. Bruce Kroeker, from Ted Zorich & Associates, the engineer working on the transfers, gave the Board a brief update. Mr. Kroeker began by saying that the City has been acquiring a substantial number of shares in the Southside Ditch Companies which include New Mercer, Arthur, Iarimer County No. 2, and Warren Lake. These have been acquired as the areas that have previously been irrigated with these ditches have become urbanized, and the City has obtained the water rights either through dedication or purchase. Currently the City owns 32% of Arthur, which is about 1600 Ac-ft a year; 32% of New Mercer, which is about 1700 Ac-ft; a combination of Iarimer No. 2 and Warren Lake is an additional about 3400 Ac-ft. In terms of water rights transfers, this will be a significant amount of water, totaling between 6500 and 7000 Ac-ft. After being sidetracked for quite some time with Thornton issues, the City has again been working on Southside transfers for the last six months with the intent of getting far enough along to file the application this year, and "we believe it was filed by the water attorneys today," he said. On the engineering side of the project basically they have been working on three components: 1) Evaluate the historic irrigation use of water rights It is necessary to show the water court how much of the water has been consumed and how much has been return flows, and where those have occurred. 2) Re-evaluate the City's use of water That was done previously in the 1970s. However, due to certain other obligations and also as part of this case, the City is taking another look at how much water is used both outdoors and indoors, and how much return flow is associated with that. Eventually, the idea is to balance the historic return flows from irrigation use with those that occur with municipal use. Usually the municipal use returns more water to the stream, and "we are going to ask for the ability to reclaim and reuse whatever excess there is over and above what occurs historically," he pointed out. 3) Develop a plan for how the City could integrate these irrigation water rights into the municipal water supply system Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 4 The elements involved in the process are: (1) Since the City is going to water court and asking for a decree, this is going to establish how the City uses this water in the future in perpetuity (we assume). It's important for us to consider not only how the City might use this water this year or next year, but 10 years or even 100 years from now. With that in mind, we have tried to develop a fairly detailed and comprehensive plan for which to request approval to water court to give the City considerable flexibility in using this water in the future. (2) Another important aspect of that plan concerns the location of the points of diversion and the nature of the irrigation water rights. Since they are irrigation water rights, the City will be limited to using those in the future during the same period of time they have been used in the past, which is the growing season. Also the points of diversion for all of these are located downstream from the City's intake at the mouth of the canyon, so there is a need for alternate points of diversion. The overall aspects of the plan contemplate developing ways for the City to move that water upstream, either to store it to allow diversion in the pipeline, or to store it so it can be used for potable treatment use, while leaving flexibility for some other uses also. Mr. Kroeker continued by saying that the plan has been developed over the last 3 months working closely with Utility staff to identify how the City might want to think about using the water. Future basic types of use for this water: 1) Request to allow water rights to be diverted directly at City's pipeline upstream as an alternate point of diversion, and treated and delivered through City's water system 2) Continued diversion at the current headgates or alternatively other southside ditch headgates, and use that water for non -potable purposes such as irrigation of golf courses, parks, etc. (current practice) An additional request which has been included in this category, would be the ability to call for this water to be delivered to the headgates, leave it in the River, and deliver it through the recreational corridor which the City now has the ability to do, due to last year's water court approval of the water rights diversion for the nature center. 3) Diversion to storage at various alternate points Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 5 4) Use for augmentation In the water rights context this refers to a concept to replace depletions with a water source. An example of this would be the regulatory requirements that evaporation be replaced from the gravel pit ponds. This would be a source of supply that the City could use for that option. 5) Use for exchange operations In many ways this is one of the more complicated aspects of this application, and it is brought on again by the necessity to try to move the water upstream where the City can use it more effectively for potable purposes, and this is the one aspect that requires a new water right appropriation. All of the other components are just a change of water rights from irrigation to municipal use. The purpose of the new water right is not requesting the right to divert new water from the River, but rather to establish a priority for operating an exchange. That was one of the more important and complicated things that the City has been trying to accomplish in the last few months. In fact, the City's nature center diversion dam "recreational water right case," which was heard by the supreme court last year, established some new, and as of yet not fully understood procedures for what one has to do now -a -days to establish a new water right. "We followed directions of legal counsel and hopefully we have accomplished this week what we need to do," Mr. Kroeker emphasized. This includes developing the plan that he discussed today; publishing that in the report which he will distribute to the Board; posting signs at the points of exchange which have been claimed by the City, and that was taken care of by staff yesterday; and filing the water court application, which was done today. An additional component was publishing the notice in the Fort Collins newspaper this morning of the City's intent to appropriate water. Mr. Kroeker then pointed out on a map the structures on the North Fork and main stem of the Poudre for which the City has requested exchange rights. He reiterated that the only way the City can divert water from the River to the treatment plant at this point, is at the pipeline above the mouth of the canyon. He also pointed out the locations of the Southside ditch headgates. In order for the City to get the water into the system, it needs to move the water upstream somehow. The exchanges that are contemplated fall into the following categories: Diverting the water upstream which might be called an alternate point of diversion and might necessitate, from the water commissioner's and the state engineer's views, an exchange. The City has requested the ability to divert water at upstream locations: one would be the Munroe gravity canal and that's the location where the City is thinking about building a pipeline in the future; also at the Poudre Valley Canal and the City of Greeley pipeline. These are all places where Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 6 the City might build pipelines to the River, he said. Another possible scenario is to divert water at Halligan Reservoir. The City could also develop the ability to perform exchanges with some of the ditch companies. North Poudre structures have been identified in the application, as well as Larimer and Weld, Lake Canal, Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet, New Cache and others. An example of the type of operation that might be involved in those scenarios is that the City could forego the diversion of its Southside Ditch water the same time Larimer and Weld was calling for CBT water to be released from Horsetooth. The City could provide its Southside Ditch water in exchange for the CBT water release, deliver that water to Larimer and Weld Canal, receive a like amount in Horsetooth in -lieu -of that water needing to be released to Larimer and Weld, and then have it in a place where it could be delivered to the treatment plant. Similar trades or exchanges could be accomplished with North Poudre and some of the other downstream locations. In addition, Fossil Creek is in a location where it receives most, if not all, of the City's wastewater discharge. As we incorporate these waters into the system, and earlier we talked about quantifying historic use, and perhaps having some reusable water, some of that would be discharged from the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and could be stored in Fossil Creek Reservoir with appropriate arrangements with owners of that structure, and exchanged back upstream again. Mr. Kroeker concluded by saying that in a nutshell, that is the plan that has been developed. As mentioned earlier, the City filed with water court today. He added that "we have heard reports that the Northern District has also been filing on river exchanges recently." He asked John Bigham if he could comment on them, and Mr. Bigham said he was not at liberty to discuss these filings. Mr. Kroeker went on to say that now we must wait to see what decision will emerge from the water court filing. He then passed out the Ted Zorich & Associates, Inc. reports entitled "Evaluation of Municipal Uses for the Water Attributable to Shares in the Southside Ditch Companies." Dave Stewart asked if the Utility is coordinating this plan with Parks & Recreation in light of all the controversy associated with Warren Lake. Dennis Bode said that staff had a meeting this morning with representatives from the Southside Ditch Companies. They are aware of the application and the changes the City is contemplating. Mr. Stewart wondered specifically if there is going to be a reason to store water in Warren Lake anymore. "We think we will continue to store water in Warren Lake," Mr. Bode replied. Collindale Golf Course, and Warren Park are irrigated with water taken from there. "We are also looking at opportunities to use Warren Lake water at the southeast junior high school site," he said. 4 Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 7 Mr. Kroeker said that perhaps when he outlined the plan, he didn't emphasize that enough. "We tried to be very careful to structure this such that the current uses can be continued, so those who choose to can continue as long as they want to," he stressed, "while also asking for the ability to do the other things that have been mentioned." Mr. Stewart wondered if at some time "Parks & Rec. or the homeowners want to buy water shares so the Warren Lake wouldn't dry up, I would assume that the City would work with them, so the ability to use that water wouldn't be lost." I don't ever see Warren Lake drying up, Mike Smith assured Mr. Stewart. Dr. Grigg asked Bruce Kroeker how long it will take to "get all of this done." "At a minimum a year, and on the other side two or three," he replied. The applicant has some control over how long this takes. "Our intent is to push things forward." People will have two months to file statements of opposition (until the end of February). At that time we will know who has filed, and we will begin meeting with them, and if necessary, prepare for court. Dr. Grigg also asked if considerable engineering and legal work is anticipated on this. "I anticipate that Thornton will definitely file a statement of opposition," Mr. Kroeker replied. The engineering work is nearly completed at this point. We need to reach some agreements with the ditch companies on what compensation for ditch loss would be left in the ditch. Once we have done that, we will begin to wrap things up. Our intent and hope would be that we can negotiate reasonable terms and conditions. Tim Dow asked if the Southside Ditch Companies would be co -applicants or objectors. "Hopefully neither," Mike Smith responded. "They will not be co -applicants," Mr. Kroeker added. Mike Smith promised to keep the Board updated as things progress. A draft of the regional wastewater treatment plant proposed public access plan was included in Water Board packets. Mike Smith began by saying that one of the items in the Council's 1992 work plan included a task to develop a proposed public access plan for the future regional wastewater treatment plant site, and also the Meadow Springs Ranch. Staff has worked on the wastewater treatment plant site first because the study that is being done at Meadow Springs won't be completed for another year. MaryLou Smith asked if public access means the public will be able to visit the site. Since all the land the City owns is not used for the purpose for which it is intended, the Council believes that excess property can be opened up to the public for some recreational use. Tom Gallier, the Utility's Technical Projects Manager, gave a brief history and update of the project. He first introduced Laura Hairgrove, a landscape architect student from CSU who had Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 8 produced all the design work on each of the options on display at the meeting. Mr. Gallier described the wastewater treatment plant site which includes approximately 160 acres just to the east of the Ptarmigan Golf Course. The site is bisected by the Poudre river, and includes cottonwood dominated lowlands, steeply sloped ridges, and upland areas that have been converted to irrigated cropland. Most of the site is located within the flood plain, with a significant portion within the flood way. Because only a portion of the site will be ultimately devoted to wastewater treatment, a substantial amount of the remaining buffer area is potentially available for public access and use. Mr. Gallier said that lead staff from the Utility worked with a task group composed of representatives from Natural Resources, Planning, Parks & Recreation and the Facilities departments. They also brought in folks from the CSU Recreation and Landscape Architecture Dept., and from Larimer County Planning, and a few other people, to get their input and ideas. The idea was to develop the public access part of the site in a way that it would not unnecessarily limit what we can do on the site in the future as far as wastewater treatment, but at the same time pick those areas that appear to have the most interest of the public, and develop them in some kind of cost effective way. "You'll see some proposals for the future in the proposed plan, are a little fancier and would be more expensive. Sources of funding for those would have to be identified by Council," he pointed out. In the report there is a series of 5 alternatives. The most usable recreation site is along the west bank of the River where it widens out into a cottonwood grove in a lowland area, which is basically not usable for wastewater facilities. The idea is to create a small parking area in a comer of the property accessible by both County Roads 3 and 32, and develop a small trail that would follow down to the grove. There is a lot of wildlife in that area, and theoretically, there is some potential for fishing, although the River quality isn't quite as nice as it is further upstream. All it would take to accomplish this would be some limited fencing, signage and some minor fence improvements. The area now is leased for irrigated farming. Staff is currently in the process of renegotiating the lease, but those areas that have been traditionally used for farming, need to be continued to be farmed just to beneficially use the water rights that came with the property. The recreational plans shouldn't create a problem for the farmers either. This plan is the easiest and the least expensive to develop, he said. The next alternative is the area on County Rd. 32 east where the house was previously on the property. The idea here is to open up a stretch of the River on that side. Again it would involve some fencing, signage, a few improvements, and perhaps some picnic tables. This area is nice and shady and would lend itself well to a roadside rest area concept, and again would not have a real impact on the wastewater treatment operations of the future. Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 9 The next alternative is a little more complicated. When you are traveling down 392 and come to the western boundary of the site, you are right at the top of a ridge which drops down steeply to a lowland area that is irrigated corn land. The idea here is to develop a turn -out, because at this area you have some fairly nice views of the river bottom. Hopefully without spending too much money the area could be graded out, and with appropriate fencing and signage it would be a nice overlook of the area, and again, without creating any problems for our wastewater operations. He began discussing the last two options by saying that the planning people have pointed out that there is a desire to create a paved access trail for hikers and bikers between Fort Collins, Windsor and Greeley. After looking at the area, they think the east side of the River is the logical location for that trail. It already exists as a dirt road that allows the farmers to access the fields on that side. "We don't see a problem with that, but the cost to put it in would be fairly expensive, and there is no funding source identified for that right now," he said. The Committee is keeping a low profile on this option because they don't know how controversial it may be with the neighbors in that area, but "we do show it in the plan because we want to be up front that it is a goal of the City, and that's the logical place for the trail to go." He said that the potential uses on the east side of the River are more heavily developed while those on the west side are more low key, similar to the nature center. The last alternative involves an irrigated corn field and a small pasture, which could be developed into an upland range type site, which is probably what it was originally. Developing this site could be quite expensive because the whole area would have to be re -configured. Another plan might be for a possibly heavily used site for a Larimer County Park, or if Windsor wanted the site for a regional park. What the Committee found is that the County doesn't have anything planned for the area right now, and Windsor already has a site along the River about a mile south, so there doesn't seem to be much interest. "We would rather see light uses along there and not heavy concentrated uses, because then you have a greater potential for creating conflict for wastewater treatment facilities," he stressed. Mr. Gallier will be discussing these plans with all of the City boards that would be involved. He began with the Water Board. Next he will visit the Natural Resources, Planning & Zoning, and Parks and Recreation Boards where he will be asking for comments and input. He plans sometime in February to bring this in report form to the Council, and find out if they want to proceed with it. He believes the Council is looking for some kind of cost effective plan that allows public access without limiting or eliminating any of our options for the site in the future. Paul Clopper asked about the alternatives to develop an upland range type of area and heavy use park. In both cases wouldn't it be necessary to remove whoever was there from the sites, but Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 10 for all the other alternatives that wouldn't necessarily be the case? "That's right," Mr. Gallier replied. "However, it is our goal to allow the land to be farmed as long as possible." Mr. Clopper also asked in parcel A what the relationship is between the flood way and the flood plain, and what protection has to happen eventually to keep the wastewater treatment plant dry. "We are just getting into that right now with the engineers," Mr. Gallier said. He also indicated on the map which areas were the floodway and which areas are the flood plain. As far as protection of the plant, economics will drive it as to what specific things will be done, and we have recently met with the engineers to discuss options. Right now it is too early to talk about any specifics. Mr. Clopper's last question was about the possibilities of hunting on the site. Mr. Gallier said the Committee talked about the possibility of allowing hunting. It has happened historically on this site up until the time the City bought it. There was a small group that had year around access, mostly for water fowl on the River, but they also were able to hunt rabbits and squirrels. The Committee discussed this at length, and of course this can be an emotional issue for some people. The final recommendation that the Committee came up with was that, if this site is best used for low level uses like wildlife watching and possibly some fishing, it might be incompatible with hunting. Plus, as we develop this site further and we have facilities there with lots of people on the site, the potential for someone getting hurt becomes greater. Whether Council will agree with that is another question. Dr. Grigg asked if this will result in adoption of a plan. Mike Smith said that he isn't sure how the Council will proceed on this, but the Council has adopted a number of other plans like this by resolution. It's possible that they will do that with this one also. Mr. Gallier said if they approve it, it's possible by next year we can at least have the first access into the cottonwood grove lowland area. Dr. Grigg asked when staff expects the plant to be open. In the master plan we projected it to be in 1999-2000, Mike Smith responded. Construction would begin at least two years before then. Tom Sanders asked if rock quarrying still occurs on the site. Western Mobil and other mining companies control most the land around the site, but I don't know of any rock quarrying, Mr. Gallier replied. Mr. Smith said that the City has been asked if it is interested in an area that basically straddles the site, and the River runs through it. It is not mined yet, and the owners wondered if the City was interested in buying it as a buffer. Potentially, it could be a good buffer, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of interest from the Council, and "there are probably better uses for our money right now," he concluded. Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page it Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that the Utility treated 1409 Ac-ft of water for November which brings us up to an annual total of just over 25,000 Ac-ft, and that's about 88% of where we thought we would be. "We should finish at about 87-88% of average," he concluded. Brief discussion about Sump Pumps Board members received background information on this subject in their packets. The issue is related to the discharge of water from sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system. According to the memo, people with sump pumps have traditionally either discharged the water onto their lawns, onto the street, into the storm sewer, or into the sanitary sewer. Discharging the water into the sanitary sewer or onto the street is prohibited. The preferred method of dealing with sump pump water is to discharge it into a storm sewer, and this solution generally works when dealing with new construction. However, for existing homes and businesses, the storm sewer solution can be very costly and impractical, which means other solutions need to be considered. Mike Smith said that this is a far more complicated issue than what was included in the memo. "We have been confronted with some situations where the homeowner is caught in a "Catch 22," he acknowledged. They can't discharge it into the street because the City engineers made a ruling that, in the winter, it becomes an icy safety hazard. They can't discharge it to the sanitary sewer because that's prohibited. In some cases the lawns haven't been able to absorb enough, which results in a flood situation. Sometimes the storm sewer or an irrigation ditch are too far away to be advantageous. In some cases the person with the sump pump can't do anything, but if they stop pumping, their basement fills up with water. One of the options the City is proposing is to make a provision in the code that if sump pump users meet certain criteria (outlined in the memo), they can discharge the water to a sanitary sewer system. However the major problems with this are: (1) using expensive wastewater treatment capacity to treat clear water, and (2) diluting sanitary wastes such that the City can not meet permit requirements. Mr. Smith said that an important point for the Utility is that we quantify the discharge so we know how much to charge them for a plant investment fee. Another point of concern is that the groundwater wouldn't be contaminated with gasoline, for example. Also, as mentioned above, there may be a problem with diluting sanitary wastes such that the City can't meet permit requirements. Of course we would not want to violate our permit, he stressed. A major disadvantage for the sump pump dischargers may be that they could double their sewer fee and have to pay a new PIF to get the pumps tied in. Tom Sanders asked if the City inspectors pick up some of these illegal practices. Sometimes homeowners do and at times the building contractors do. "We discovered in checking into this Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 12 that some of the building inspectors didn't know what the code said on this." Most of the pumps are found in the older parts of town. In the newer areas contractors are putting in sub -drains to keep the basements dry. The sub -drainage issue is another problem that the City is trying to resolve. Mr. Smith pointed out that in the newer areas of town or when re -development occurs in older areas, they are tying to the storm drainage system. "Typically where is this water going now?" Tom Brown asked. Some people are discharging on their lawns, but not many, some of them discharge into the street, but most of them use their floor drains which are tied into the sanitary sewer, Mr. Smith replied. Tim Dow asked what kind of volume we are talking about. It varies, but some customers only run a few gallons a minute for 3 or 4 hours a day. Others are putting out upwards of 300-400 gallons per day. Tom Brown pointed out that it's not all year long. Mr. Smith agreed that generally it's only when the ditches are running during the irrigation months. Tom Brown contends that the street seems like an obvious place for this water. If the complaint for doing that is that it will cause icy conditions, but most of the water is coming later in the year, then "I don't see the problem. It seems that we are incurring a lot of cost; resources are being used etc. for a rather trivial problem," he added. Mr. Smith said Utility staff brought that to the attention of the Streets people, and they said some of the pumps run year around. Dave Stewart suggested that staff may want to add that criteria. Namely, if it's only running in the summer, that they can discharge it to the street. Mr. Brown agreed that it seems silly to change everybody just because of a few isolated problems. "What's the typical PIF for the average residence?" Paul Clopper wanted to know. "Around $1600," Mr. Smith answered. "So you are looking at that plus the additional monthly charge based on the estimate of the flow," Mr. Clopper added. He said his firm has done work with these kinds of problems. For full basements where they may be pulling in 5-6 feet of ground water, they have found flow rates of a gallon per minute averaged over the year; that's 1440 gallons per day, which is a lot of water. "That's larger than the numbers we've heard," Mr, Smith responded. Dr. Sanders thinks that when you are building a house near a ditch, there should be special requirements. In his case, he had the builders bring in additional dirt and put the house two feet higher. Mr. Smith said some of the newer subdivisions are installing more extensive sub -drains and draining them to detention ponds. Paul Clopper asked a question about No. 6 on the list of criteria that would allow people with sump pumps to discharge into the sanitary sewer. It says that the applicant provide the City with a good and reliable estimate of the quantity of water to be discharged, showing the peak day amount of discharge in number of gallons per day. "How is a homeowner going to show that • 0 Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 13 up front, or would it be better to have some kind of metering device and actually determine it?" He said it is going to be tough for a homeowner to come up with an estimate. That's a good point, Mr. Smith responded. Mike Smith will return next month with a draft of the revisions to the code, at which time the Board will be able to review it and make a recommendation. • 6 - - - lad Water Supply Committee Due to Chairman Mark Casey's illness, Committee member Tom Brown gave the report from the meeting which was held prior to the Board meeting. Tom Brown reported that the Committee discussed water rental information which staff provided for them. Traditionally the water that is available for rent in the spring has been offered first to previous renters when there is not enough to go around. However, there is something in the City Charter that suggests that this is not the best way to do it, so staff has proposed a way to be more in line with the Charter. The new draft of the guidelines states that everyone who requests water between the first of the year and the end of March, is put in a lottery. They are all allowed to rent water if there is enough, and if there is not enough to meet everybody's needs, there are certain procedures for dealing with that. The Committee reviewed that proposal. A letter will be sent in January to renters of water explaining the new system. Dennis Bode said this was previously reviewed by the City Attorney's office, and it will be reviewed again before a letter is sent out. Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Bode to explain the difference between the way it was handled previously and the new proposal. The main difference in the past was that we had customers that came back year after year, and when we faced a situation where we had more requests than water, we would normally rent first to those who had consistently rented in the past. Staff is planning to drop that system and look at each year on its own basis. "What we will do if there is a shortage, to the extent that we can't divide it among all those who request it, we'll go to a random allocation system; basically a lottery." Once we get to a certain point in the year, people will be on a first come, first served basis. Legislative and Finance Committee Tim Dow had no report, but he hopes to have a report next month depending on what happens with the Legislature. Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith said she would have a report next month. Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 14 Engineering Committee No report. Council/Water Board Water Quality Committee (ad hoc) Committee member Tom Sanders reported that the Committee met earlier this month and it was a good meeting. The Committee was given a preliminary update on the current situation. One of the items that surprised him was that manganese is becoming a real problem with the drinking water supplies. There is considerable water quality data to keep an eye on, he said. Mike Smith mentioned that two of the Council members had some questions about future impacts of new federal regulations, and another one had a question about the risk assessment. Staff is doing some research on those items for the next meeting. Dr. Grigg suggested that it would be a good idea to provide some kind of public education program on future costs and effects of water quality regulations ahead of time, so that "we don't always have to react to problems after the fact." Regional Water Supply Strategy Update Mike Smith asked for feedback on potential cooperative efforts for operations and maintenance at the regional water treatment plants. Staff will be meeting with representatives from some of those entities to discuss this regional concept. The District just expanded their plant and they are looking to hire more people. "We may work with them by offering to operate the plants jointly, and perhaps share some resources," he said. He asked if there were any objections from the Board to this plan. The Board didn't object to pursuing this, except for possible differences in water quality standards. Other Business 1993 Colorado Water Convention Neil Grigg announced that there will be a 1993 Colorado Water Convention to be held on January 4th and 5th at the Stouffer Concourse Hotel. The meeting will address the topics of front range water alternatives and transfer of water from one area of the state to another. The sponsor of the conference is the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Governor Romer will kick off the two day event. Molly Nortier will make arrangements for any Board member who would like to attend. Newspaper Article on Battle with Forest Service over Stream Flow Requirements There was discussion on an article that was featured in today's Coloradoan on the regional battle with the forest service over stream flow requirements. The article was basically the newspaper's attempt to bring people up to date on this issue. Mike Smith reminded the Board of when they had the long meeting with Austin Condon from the Forest Service and our legal counsel John Carlson, to discuss the renewal of the Utility's special use permit at Joe Wright Reservoir. "That's basically what the newspaper article is r 0 Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 15 about," he said. Some of the other front range communities involved with the special use permit issue have been pursuing a political solution. The Secretary of Agriculture told the Forest Service to issue the permits, and that upset the Forest Service. Then Rep. Hank Brown pursued it further, which upset the Forest Service even more. The Forest Service proceeded to involve some of their environmental friends in the issue, which eventually led to the press coverage. The City still has not been issued a permit, Mr. Smith related. The City of Fort Collins is not pursuing a political solution to this; "we are still taking the administrative route." There is a meeting in Denver today with Hank Brown. Perhaps something will be printed in the newspaper tomorrow about the results of that meeting, he said. John Carlson was deeply involved in this issue before his death, Tom Sanders said. "Do we have a new attorney who will handle this?" Mr. Smith said that Mr. Carlson's office is still watching that for us. Mr. Carlson did considerable work preparing an appeal, so that is already done. We will keep the Board closely informed on this issue, he concluded. Water Board Work Plans for Other Boards President Grigg noted that copies of the Storm Drainage work plan were included in the Board packets. He thought that was a good idea. He suggested that staff draft a transmittal memo with the Water Board Work Plan attached, and forward it to the Chairpersons of the Storm Drainage, Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Zoning Boards. Mike Smith said staff would take care of that. Dr. Grigg also suggested that the Water Board plan a joint meeting sometime with these Boards as well. Sharing ideas on topics that are of interest to all of those Boards would be worthwhile and would benefit all of us. He said the Board could talk further about the idea at another meeting. Executive Session Discussion of Further Negotiations of the Halligan Reservoir Agreement with North Poudre Irrigation Co. (NPIC) At 5:05 P.M. MaryLou Smith moved that the Water Board go into executive session to discuss further negotiations of the Halligan Reservoir agreement with North Poudre Irrigation Co. Tom Brown seconded the motion, and the Board approved the executive session with a unanimous vote. Following a lengthy discussion, the Board reconvened in open session to take action on the matter. MaryLou Smith moved that the Board agree to North Poudre's proposed limit on the option period for the City to pursue the Halligan Reservoir project, and the security arrangement that is being proposed by North Poudre, with the exception that if the City reconveys the property Water Board Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 16 back to North Poudre, the City be allowed to retain, or be compensated for, any studies that are not public information. Paul Clopper provided a second, and the Board approved the motion unanimously. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M. Water BoarA Secretary