Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/16/1985MINUTES Water Board August 16, 198b Members Present Norm Evans, Chairman, Henry Caulfield, Vice-chairman, Bill Elliott, Mort Bittinger, Jim O'Brien, Tom Moore, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, Tom Sanders, Stan Ponce (alt.) Staff Present Dennis Bode, Curt Miller, Mark Taylor, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests Consultants from Resource Consultants: Dave Frick, Sam Bryson Bill Fischer, Natural Resources Board Leonard Rice, Ross Bethel, Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. Dick Westmore, Harza Engineering Tyler Martineau, Colorado Water Resources & Power Development Authority Media Mark Radtke, KCOL Members Absent Mary Lou Smith, John Scott (alt.) Chairman Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: New Board Member Chairman Evans introduced newly appointed member Stan Ponce. Minutes The minutes of July 19, 1985 were approved. Drought Study Dennis Bode introduced Dave Frick and Sam Bryson of Resource Consultants who produced much of the work on the drought study. The report has been completed and was distributed to the Board. It was the desire of the Water Board to discuss the study before the joint work session with the City Council on August 27. Mr. Frick and Mr. Bryson gave a fairly detailed presentation a few months ago and thus, will give a brief summary this time in order to allow adequate time for questions and discussion. Mr. Frick explained that the 3 major goals of the study were to: 1) determine the drought characteristics of the Poudre River, 2) evaluate the drought effects on the City's water supply both for now and in the future, 3) identify and analyze various water supply strategies that could be adopted by the City for dealing with extreme droughts. Paae 2 Minutes August 1b, 1985 As part of the first task, the consultants used existing data that were available for stream flows on the Poudre basin and surrounding basins. They analyzed the statistical characteristics of the historic droughts on the rivers and developed a stochastic model so that they could make extended drought analyses for more infrequent drought events. Next, they analyzed the synthetic data for the drought characteristics and selected the periods from the synthetic data that they would use for drought analysis for the City's water supplies. For those drouant periods they also made estimates of imported waters from adjacent basins that would occur during those drought periods. They verified their analysis with some tree ring data to make certain their stochastic model seemed realistic based on long term historic data. Finally, they generated monthly stream flows that could be used for analysis of the City's water supplies during the drought periods. Mr. Frick mentioned that during their last presentation, there was a concern about how a drought in the Poudre Basin might be affected by the other basins. It was shown that when the Poudre Basin has droughts the Colorado River Basin has droughts too. This is consistent with the other basins that they looked at too. The consultants defined droughts in three ways: 1) a run -intensity drought which is very intense but of short duration, 2) a run -deficit drought in which the duration is long but the average deficit is quite small, 3) a run -sum in which there is a very large deficit of flow over not as long a period of time or not as intense. Basically, they looked at drought characteristics of the historical data for those three types of droughts, and came up with their design droughts based on the combination of three that stressed the water supply system the most. They selected four design droughts that they used to analyze the water supply for the City's system. The droughts selected tended to meet the general conditions that were defined as far as deficit and duration. By looking at tree ring data, they verified that there were not any long term trends or climatic changes that would affect the stream flow and thus, concluded that their stochastic model was valid. They looked at the general basin water supply during the draughts to determine if there were any major problems with carry-over storage or problems in the basin that might affect some of the City's water rights. Generally, when deficits were expected, there were deficits in storage. They concluded that the estimates of the water rights yields calculated by Dennis Bode and Andy Pineda on the MUDSIM model appeared to be realistic. Next, they looked at projections of future demands as compared with water supplies and how drought sensitive the various water supplies are. The current City policy is to maintain an adequate supply to meet a 1-in-20 year drought ten years into the future. Assuming that that policy was maintained, it appears that in the year 2035 scenarios, a IUU year drought could not be • Page 3 Minutes August 16, 1955 met for either of two supply options: 1) where we obtain additional storage water, or 2) by obtaining more CST and North Poudre shares. Based on that analysis, the basic strategy that emerged was: to maintain a water supply that is adequate for most droughts and then when there are droughts in excess of the design drought, emergency measures would be used. What Resource Consultants is recommending is to design for a 1-in-100 year drought or essentially, a system reliability of 99%. They did not, however, do an economic analysis to say that is the most cost effective drought to design for. In the short term what they are saying is, currently, the City has water supplies to meet a 1-in-100 year drought and it should remain that way for many years into the future. It appears there is no immediate need to develop an emergency plan, or a need to change water acquisition policies at this point. In the long term, the consultants are recommending that the City analyze the system periodically utilizing the data that is in the report by revising the demands and eyisting supplies in the future to make certain that, at a point in time the City will fall in the 1-in-100 year criteria. At that point, if the City decides to use the 1-in-100 design drought for supply criteria, then revisions should be looked at in the water acquisition policy, and the development of emergency plans. There are two ways of doing emergency planning: 1) Restrict the demands during a draught; this is most crucial during the later years of an extreme drought. 2) From the supply end, there are a couple of options for additional supplies during emergency conditions: storing excess water in junior reservoirs and looking at the possibility of renting agricultural water during extreme conditions. The recommendations Resulting from the Study are: 1. Fort Collins should determine its optimum drought design criteria based on an economic evaluation and other factors. A preliminary conclusion is that the water supply should be maintained to meet the demands for a 1-in-100 drought. 2. The present policy requiring the dedication of water rights with land development should be continued, and, in the short term, additonal acquisitions or expansions are not needed. 3. An emergency contingency plan should be developed within the next few years for dealing with extreme droughts or other emergencies. Emergency measures that could be implemented include restrictions on water use and agreements with agricultural users to rent senior water rights or the use of junior reservoir storage rights by filling with excess City water during the initial years of long-term drought periods. Mr. Frick asked for questions and discussion. Page 4 Minutes August 16, 1985 Norm Evans asked if their analysis indicated that we don't need more storage. Mr. Frick explained that the storage that was used as carry-over was used in the driest years. There was not a lot of need of additional storage for any given years on a month to month basis that wasn't already in the system, Mr. Bode confirmed that the model did distribute demand and supply monthly, and although there could be some refinements in a certain month, for the most part, the carry-over storage we depend on is Horsetooth or Joe Wright and can be used later in the year. Bill Elliott asked if higher densities in the future will make a difference. Dennis Bode pointed out that with the change that was made in the raw water requirements recently, the density was included in that equation so as we have more dense development, the amount of water we require from that development will also increase. He added that this analysis didn't address that question specifically. Basically, they selected a certain demand and forced the supply to meet that. It was more of a determination of the difference in droughts then an actual projection of supply and demand. Neil Grigg expresssed concern about figure 4 in the Summary in which it appears we would be running out of water in 1992. Mr. Frick responded that into this there are two sources of reserve; Joe Wright storage was not included and it was assumed, which is not totally correct, that the supply remains fixed although the demand is increased. That was the most conservative assumption to test the supply. There is water however, that has been acquired by the City for lands which are not currently developed; so, there could be some development that would occur without increasing the water supply. Mr. Grigg questioned if it would be possible to display that reserve graphically so a person could see it. It might be good if there were some kind of a drought index number where, for example, we could say we have reserves that are 1.2 X what we need or 1.3 or 1.6, whatever; therefore, we are okay. Dennis Bode explained that with figure 4 you can do that. The thing you need to know is what kind of design criteria you choose. If you choose 1-in-100, you use this graph or the tables that preceed it to get the ratio that you are talking about. Mr. Grigg understood it after the explanation but suggested that it may be possible to make this graph clearer. Jim O'Brien had a series of questions. What was the cost of the study? About $bO,000 for a one year period. What is the potential for modification of this in the future as we develop our new supply and demand constraints? One of the goals of the study was to develop data that could be fed into the MOOSIM Program in order that different demand options and different supplies could be looked at any time in the future. As far as emergency measures go, does the City have them for example, in the event of toxification? Dennis Bode acknowledged that there isn't one document that spells out all the possibilities. Bill Elliott pointed out that there is a set of ordinances that relate to priorities of usage in drought situations. Henry Caulfield added that the Water Board has certain powers in emergency situations. The thing we don't have is the experience of renting water from others during a Page S Minutes August 16, 198b drought. As far as toxification of the water, the Board has not considered this. Jim O'Brien asked about the worst case scenario that is shown in the report -- based on the definition of drought, he thought we were actually facing a worse situation if we considered several years of drought, an intervening year of above average, and then several more years of drought. However, it appears historically that we went from 1930 up through 1956 when there were only 2 or 3 years in the early 19SO's where that wasn't the case. Did anybody look at a cumulative running deficit? Sam Bryson looked at what would 'happen if we used a different definition of drought such as a running average type where we do have a cumulative deficit. It was concluded that that situation is not as severe a constraint as some of the droughts they selected based on the City's mix of water supply. Mr. Bryson confirmed that he had looked at that and he concluded that the system designed for the 1-in-100 drought would in fact be about 99% reliable; in other words, in the long term of 500 years, it would only fall short S years out of the SOO. Mr. Frick also related that they selected the 30 year period that surrounded a drought in the stocastic series; the model was run through the entire 30 years for a warm-up period and a period following the drought. After being asked how the 1-in-20 drought characteristics were determined, Mr. Frick explained that they divided the record into 20-year segments and averaged the parameters from the worst drought in each segment. One drought 18 years long, was a drought which could also have been the worst drought in a 500 year length when they looked at that too. Tom Sanders commented about the use of the 1-in-100 recommendation for supply which could become quite costly in the future. He contends that 1-in-20 is sufficient for most other water supplies and the most reasonable. If we do expand the study we need to have an economic look at the decision making on this. Mr. Frick responded that the one thing they looked at related to that was if you did choose a 1-in-20 as your drought frequency, the difference between that and a 1-in-100 in the future is going to be greater than it is now as far as supplies go. As you obtain more supplies you are going to obtain more junior type rights. Your incremental difference spreads. bO years down the road, if you used a 1-in-20 as a design criteria, you may have a real problem during extreme droughts. Dave Stewart commented that if the model is updated continuously, you will see that trend immediately. At that time you would make a policy decision to change it. Dennis Bode concurs that this sets the framework for doing some refined studies where you look at actual projected supplies and projected demands. Henry Caulfield talked about a Hazards Conference in Boulder at which he was one of the speakers. Drought was one of the topics of discussion. It was asked at the conference if all drought years were defined as those years where water availability was less than average. According to the study, any year that fell below the mean was indicated as a drought year. The questioner responded that the trouble with this is that the layman may not believe that half of the years are "drought years." Mr. Caulfield said Ken Page 6 Minutes August 16, 1965 Wright:, one of the leading engineers in the state, came to the rescue and, in essense, said that using the mean was acceptable. Mr. Frick said they had considered different ways of defining a drought, but had also concluded that the results would be the same. Mr. Wright also said that the 1-in-100 seems like a reasonable level of planning. He also pointed out that the surrounding water entities should contemplate doing drought studies. If a drought; occurs and they are not prepared, it is possible that the City will be placed in a position of having to share its supplies. Dr. Evans agreed with the latter suggestion and added that we have the route to pursue it considering our frequent meetings with these groups for regionalization discussions. Neil Grigg commented that what we need now is more complex than an economic study to evaluate what frequency of drought we should be prepared for. We need a policy analysis of different policies complete with simulations of what we would do if certain things happened. Tom Sanders commented about the definition of drought. He thinks a reasonable definition it to say that a drought occurs when the expected uses of the water are not met by available supplies. The use of the mean is good, he said since it is generally accepted. He went on to say that the report could not be criticized for the definition of drought. In another point, he emphasized that this is a perfect opportunity for regionalization; we need to work with the other area water entities for drought planning. Henry Caulfield stressed that one of the reasons for this meeting today was to prepare for the work session with the City Council on August 27. Perhaps the Board needs to first accept the report as fulfilling the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Caulfield asked staff if the consultant has met all the terms of the contract. Mr. Bode said they have met the requirements. Mr. Caulfield moved that the Board advise the Council that they should accept the report as meeting the contract requirements. Dave Stewart seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Chairman Evans asked the consultant if this is indeed the final report or could they incorporate some of the Board's suggestions. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the Board was not obligated to accept the report on technical and expository grounds. Mr. Frick responded that this was considered the final report. He added that the City staff had reviewed the preliminary report and the consultant also incorporated the Board's comments from the previous presentation to the Water Board. Henry Caulfield stated that it is necessary now to decide what the Board wants to recommend to go forward from here. Part of the report's recommendations that Mr. Caulfield would like to focus on are the emergency responses, which are of 2 types: 1) restrictions on water use and 2) augmentation of the supply. He wishes to concentrate on the latter; namely, contracts to rent the early river rights of others on the river during drought. There could be several variations for implementation. He proposed that the Board recommend Page 7 Minutes August 16, 198b to the City Council that we hire a consultant to study legal implications, etc. of a reconnaissance level exploration of renting agricultural water. It seems to Mr. Caulfield that we know a great deal about cost of reservoirs etc. and generally we know about restrictions. The thing we don't have knowledge about is having prior contracts with people for times of drought; people with good water riyhts. It is also important to have this information because the City is going to have to respona to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's study of a storage facility on the Poudre River. It is important that we know about this alternative for meeting droughts. Tom Sanders advocates developing a two -tiered system of acquiring water: 1) to meet our average demands and 2) to buy the water and lease it back except in times of severe drought. The value of this system is that we could probably buy the water a little cheaper. Also we don't have to go to court and pull water away from agriculture. Mr. Caulfield contends that this is what the reconnaissance study would do -- look into the costs and acceptability of all of the different ways of acquiring water. Neil Grigg concurs with Mr. Caulfield's idea of a study in terms of the need to look into this. He went'on to suggest the idea that the City might assume the role of a wholesale water broker in this area of Northern Colorado. Norm Evans commented that Denver was having its problems in wholesaling water in the Denver metro area. Dennis Bode said that some of the regionalization concepts the City is working on with the area water entities stress working together; not necessarily one agency taking the lead, but forming an agency that would be responsible for everybody's interests. Neil Grigg would like to know more about what is happening at these regionalization meetings. Mr. Bode said that the group is proceeding cautiously but they are working on a preliminary report to share with the different Boards. The Chairman asked the Board to consider what they want to say to the Council regarding the report. Henry Caulfield responded that we may not want to say "we buy all the recommendations." Instead we merely discuss the recommendations; what they mean, what their implications are, etc. He suggests that a formal proposal not be presented to the Council at this time. Bill Elliott added that he thinks we should formulate things that can be done in terms of an emergency plan. Tom Sanders said we are formulating long term built-in safety in the system too. The critical aspect here is "how safe do we want to be?" Once we determine that, then we talk about the alternatives. Tom Moore, Bill Elliott and Norm Evans think that the Water Board should not recommend another study to the Council at this time. Neil Grigg feels comfortable with what Mr. Caulfield proposes. He would feel more comfortable if the Board reported that we consider a study like this Pace d �hlnutes August 16, i985 necessary and the Board is going to go back and write up a scope of work for it. Jim O'Brien thinks it would be prudent to emphasize that we are doing the water system study and that the rate and drought studies will be incorporated into it. We should be able to at least address some of the emergency measures. Dennis Bode explained that he sees these reports as the foundation for ongoing planning efforts. The report that staff is working on now is oriented towards the demand side, and how things can be done to manage it. It also considers the cost of supply, and in that way it dovetails with the information in the Drought Study report. Tom Sanders emphasized that the report is excellent and that it will be a tremendous tool for planning. Henry Caulfield summarized that it appears to be the desire of the Board to "low key" any recommendation for further studies; instead, we plan to emphasize our continuing planning efforts. Instream Flows The Water Board and the newly formed Natural Resources Board were asked to discuss and make a recommendation on the instream flows proposed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Bill Fischer a member of the Natural Resources Board is also a member of a committee that was formed to study this proposal. He attended the Water Board meeting as a representative of that committee of the Natural Resources Board. Dennis Bode informed the Board that the Colorado Water Conservation Board is proposing some minimum stream flows that affect certain parts of the Poudre River. He has a cover memo and a table that list those segments which would be affected. There was a request from the Council for the Water Board and the Natural Resources Board to make a recommendation to the Council. On a map, Mr. Bode pointed out those segments which are being proposed and will be considered at the September meeting of the Conservation Board. These would be appropriated rights and would be junior to existing rights. They are supposed to allow for any existing exchanges on the River. Any problems associated with these rights probably would be associated with future projects. Tom Moore asked about the legal aspects. Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman responded that there isn't a lot we can do to protect ourselves against this because these are going to be junior. The Water Users Association has tried to discourage the CWCB from using these but the Board is adamant in their determination. Bill Fischer concurred by saying that Ward Fischer determined it would serve the City and water users best at this point to wait. There may be alternatives that we can't see right now which may help or hinder the minimum stream flows. From this perspective, it is probably best to wait until the Poudre Basin study is completed. Page 9 Minutes August 16, 1965 At this point, Mort Bittinger incroauced the consultants who will be doing the basin study. Mr. Bittinger, who is also participating in the study, invited them to attend the Water Board meeting when he learnec that the Drought Study would be discussed. Henry Caulfield suggested that we need to consider the implications ofthe impending Wild & Scenic River Act, with regard to questions of flows on the river. Norm Evans said that we have tools to examine questions like the impact of minimum flow requirements, at least in a preliminary way, through the MODSIM model. It is possible to make some assessments. Dennis Bode related that, as he understands it, the Wild & Scenic would not have specific flow numbers in it. You can't change things in the area of the designation that might affect the flows, however. Tom Moore proposed that the City send a letter saying wait until the Poudre Basin study is completed. He then moved that the Board recommend to the Council that the Council ask the Colorado Water Conservation Board "to put on hold" minimum stream action until the Poudre Basin study is finished. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. Bill Elliott thinks 1) that the Board has been given no information about why this is necessary now, 2) are these proposed flows over, above or below requirements relating to Fish & Wildlife, 3) does it cut off any kind of future need that we have on the river? Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield, Bill Elliott, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart and Stan Ponce voted in favor of the motion. Those opposed were Jim O'Brien, Neil Grigg and Tom Sanders. The motion carried. Pressure Problems at Dean Acres Curt Miller pointed out on the map where the pressure problems exist. The real problem surfaces in the definition of reasonable guidelines. We have a number of standards from AWWA etc, but we have not had a policy from the Water Board with guidance on what water service standards should be. The standards have gone up through the years. A party in Dean Acres contends that he has a low pressure problem. He has approximately 3b psi when it is good and when it is bad it falls to about 20. Under certain standards, that is suitable. In general the City tries to maintain 35 psi for most of our customers. In June of next year this customer from Dean Acres will see a pressure increase but his question was, "I feel I am getting less than your standard service; how about a discount?" Our response was that this is a policy issue, and we would bring it before the Water Board. Norm Evans said that we sell water outside the City at a price of 150% of the inside City rate, but we do not guarantee any particular pressure. It doesn't Page 10 Minutes August 16, 198b seem reasonable to grant a discount for lower pressure. We need to consider the fee policy for out of the City boundaries, however. Neil Grigg moved that we decline any rate discounts zo individual customers but consider future improvements to the system to improve service, etc. After a second from Mort Bittinger, the Board passed the motion unanimously. ,iim O'Brien thinks we should have a review of the 1 1/2 times rate structure for water and sewer that we charge customers ouside the City. Tom Sanders wants the chair to introduce guests at the beginning of the meeting. The chairman agreed to do this. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. �%,�2.2.-r Ylat�criv Water boartl Secretary