Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/12/1976• 0- WATER BOARD Regular Meeting November 12, 1976 - 3:00 P,M. Present: Ward Fischer Raymond Anderson Bernard Cain, Jr. Karl E. Carson Norman Evans Harvey Johnson Everett Richardson James Waltz Robert L. Brunton Absent: Henry Caulfield* Ronald Fulkrod Staff members present: Krempel and Liquin Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 8, 1976 approved Chairman Fischer inquired if there were any corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, he declared the minutes approved as published. Request for Out -of -City Sewer Tap Mr. Krempel stated that Mr. Robert R. Baker is requesting an out -of -City sewer tap for his property at 1108 North County #13 and recommended that this be approved subject to signing an agreement to annex when eligible and to use all City utilities when available in that area. Board member Richardson made a motion, seconded by Karl Carson, to recommend to the Council to approve this request subject to the above conditions. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Request for Out -Of -City Sewer Service Mr. Krempel stated that because planning considerations have not been resolved between the City Planning Department and the County Planning Department, it has been requested that the Water Board defer action on the request for out -of -City sewer service to the Scavo Development. David L. Wood, Attorney, appearing on behalf of Scavo-Dougherty Builders, stated that the Larimer County Commissioners have declined to take any favorable action on the application for rezoning and the submission of the subdivision plat for the reason that the questions regarding availability of water and sewer have not been answered. He stated that sewer service is available from the City of Fort Collins at the boundary of this property, but water service is not available from the City and will not be made available in the future. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District has indicated that they will make water service available to this property without sewer service. He stated that the City should take some initiative, and under the review processes of the Water Board, his client should be granted permission to tap onto the City sewer system, obtain his water service from the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, and then having accomplished the solution to that problem, he felt the County Commissioners will be prepared to favorably rule upon this request for a subdivision for residential purposes at this time. He further stated that the County Commissioners denied this subdivision request without any notice to his clients, and they have an appointment to meet with the Commissioners on Monday, November 15, to discuss this problem. He requested that the Board not defer action on this request for the reason that at that meeting, they would like to be able to show affirmative action having been taken by the Water Board and a recommendation that they be - permitted to tap onto the City's sewer system. Chairman Fischer stated that he recognized Mr. Wood's need for an answer, but the Water Board has been trying to open the lines of communication between the City Planning Department and the Water Board, and he felt this request should be deferred until comments from the Planning Department have been received. He stated that because of the urgency of the situation, at Mr. Wood's request, the Water Board would be willing to call a special meeting before their next regular meeting to make a decision. Mr; Wood stated that he was hopeful of getting this matter resolved before the first of the year. Board member Richardson inquired as to the position of the petitioners on annexation. Mr. Wood advised that they would like to annex, but this property does not have the required contiguity to do so. Mr. Krempel stated that in a memo from the City Planning Department to the County Planning Department, it was stated that the City was not against the development of the land, but was concerned with the zoning and density of the development. Board member Carson stated that he realized the need to coordinate this with the Planning Department, but felt that because the sewer line was installed for the purpose of serving this area, the Board should recommend that the development be permitted to tap onto the sewer line subject to final approval by the Planning Department. He felt that the use of this sewer line should not control the question of density. Board member Richardson made a motion, seconded by Raymond Anderson, to table this item and defer to the City Planning Department for their comments. The Chair put the motion and called for a show of hands. The motion was adopted by a vote of 5 to 3 with 1 abstaining. Request for Out -of -City Sewer Service Mr. Charles Liquin stated that HTC Corporation is requesting a sewer service to the Matterhorn site on South College. He further stated that this property is a part of the Horsetooth-South Mesa Annexation, which the City has initiated. Chairman Fischer stated that no action is needed on this item at this time until the property is annexed to the City. Statements Relative to Citizens Task Force on Comprehensive Planning Report Chairman Fischer commented that he felt the expression of concerns on the Citizens Task Force on City Goals and Objectives were extremely well stated and complimented the committees on an excellent job. Board member Evans made a motion, seconded by Bernard Cain, to adopt the comments as the position of the Water Board, Board member Richardson made a motion, seconded by Chairman Fischer, to amend Section III -2- by adding the words "highest and best use of the water, the exchange of water, greenbelts, open space, and the maintenance of a strong agricultural based community". The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. The Chair put the motion to adopt the comments as amended, which was unanimously adopted. (See Exhibit A) Report from the Engineering Committee on Joe Wright Reservoir Final Plans and Specifications Mr. Krempel stated that the Engineering Committee had met to consider the Joe Wright Reservoir Final Plans and Specifications. Chairman Fischer read a brief report to be signed by the committee members. Board member Carson made a motion, seconded by Bernard Cain, to accept the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the final plans and specifications and to recommend their approval by the City Council. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. (See Exhibit B) Reports from Subcommittees Board member Evans stated that the Water Quality Control Commission every three years is supposed to review the water quality standards and classifications for streams and has had a subcommittee working on this for 9 or 10 months with quite a range of knowledgable input, but not general public citizen input. The Commission in considering the report of the subcommittee will hold oversight hearings to receive comments from the public and will then revise the committee recommendations for preparation of public hearings. What the committee has proposed is substantial departure from what we now have in the sense of covering far more constituents in the category of pollutants as well as covering many additional constituents. Another point of importance at this time has to do with Area 208 Planning. There has been a misunderstanding as to the role played by various agencies. EPA is funding the 208 studies and the consultants are coordinating their work with EPA with the feeling that the State has little or no authority. The fact is that the State agencies are responsible for setting standards and classifications as mentioned above. This misunderstanding should be cleared up in the near future. Board member Evans further stated that there will be some controversy over how the Poudre is classified below Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2. The City has applied for a Class "C", which would allow us to discharge without removing ammonia and chlorine. That is a temporary exception classification. The new classes that are proposed to be implemented are again essentially the same as before, the fishery and swimmable Classes A and B and including an agricultural class. The question that is still unclear is how to fit the classifications into the congressional mandate for 1983, fishable/swimmable quality in all waters. This essentially requires a scheme of either extending deadline times for meeting such goals or exceptions. There is a good deal of uncertainty within the Water Quality Division on how to do that and there is some feeling that we should be idealistic and set up the'83 quality standards as our standards,.but at the same time, acknowledging that we will have to grant many exceptions or many long time extensions to meet those standards. Mr. Krempel advised that there is a meeting next Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at the Conservancy District office in Loveland sponsored by the 208 Committee to bring area people up-to-date as to what is in the standards. - 3- Board member Evans stated the standards have been proposed and the oversight hearings are like open meetings. There will be a meeting in Grand Junction on December 6 and in Denver on December 7. Chairman Fischer stated that the 208 Committee has expressed concern because they feel a possible conflict with the Water Quality Control Commission to the extent that the 208 Committee is spending alot of money on trying to develop practical ways to treat all kinds of runoff, irrigation runoff, etc. They fear_ if these stream classifications are unreasonably high, there is nothing that they can develop as a solution that could be possibly acceptable, because they would never meet the stream classifications. He stated that the law states that that the Water Quality Control Commission sets the standards and 208 is supposed to make recommendations concerning how to treat it. They are governed by the concept that they have to consider social and economic costs. I doubt whether the stream classifications have any goal other than to meet the 1983 stream designation which may be a conflict in the law but irreconcilable. Board member Evans stated that these considerations of social, practicable, and achievable cost effective have to come in the picture somewhere and there is no disagreement at all in that these conditions need to be met or considered. Board member Cain noted that there was an upcoming televised program on Sunday, December 5, on Channel 7 at 7:00 p.m. Half of the program will be dealing with growth management, and the other half will be dealing with the subject of future diversions of Western Slope water. Staff Reports Mr. Krempel stated that the modification to the Soldier Canyon Outlet is moving ahead. The Horsetooth Water Service Commission is now composed of Fort Collins, Eastman -Kodak, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, East Larimer County Water District, and North Weld County Water District. A representative from CSU has not attended the meetings as yet. He stated that at the present time, the outlet has a capacity of 125 cfs in a 30 inch pipe, and the outlet will be enlarged to a 54 inch pipe with an additional capacity of 370 cfs. The outlet will be out - of -service from November 1978 to March 1979 for construction. During that time, the City must treat the water at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 and deliver it to CSU and the districts. He added that in 1976 dollars, the total cost of the project is $2 million. Chairman Fischer stated that a legal problem has arisen on the Joe Wright Reservoir loan application. A requirement of the loan application is to have the Governor of the State of Colorado comment on the financial feasibility and the adequacy of the water. The point had to be made that the water is as adequate for this project as for any other project ever undertaken by the Bureau. Other Business 1. Board member Anderson distributed to the Water Board members a copy of a report entitled "Physical and Economic Effects on the Local Agricultural Economy of Water Transfer to the Cities" with a copy of "Colorado Economic Issues". -4- 2. Board member Evans stated that the City of Westminister has a consultant working on a plan to take water from the Farmers Highline Canal for domestic use and then treat the water and recycle it back to the canal for agricultural use. He stated the only question is what level of treatment will the City have to do before the water is put back in the canal. Board member Anderson stated that there are two proposals to recycle water, one for the City of Northglenn and one for the City of Westminister. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Charles Liquin, Sec a ry -5- WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES November 19, 1976 Mr. Les Kaplan Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 SUBJECT: Citizens Task Force Goals Report Dear Mr. Kaplan: The Water Board has reviewed subject document on your request. We note that most of the task forces recommend some objectives (at least 32) which have water -related implications. It therefore is a matter of concern as to whether or not the objectives of the task forces are in harmony with those of the City Water Board, and also in harmony with those of other task forces. We have not discovered in our review any serious conflicts among task force objectives nor with Water Board objectives. However, there are several items in the report to which we wish to call your attention with our comments, so that you can give them further consideration as may be appropriate. I. The strong desire expressed by several task forces for greenbelts and aesthetically pleasing open spaces might be construed as being in potential conflict with objectives of other task forces that allude to restricted water usage. Greenbelts and open spaces cannot be aesthetically pleasing without irrigation. The current Water Board policy is to encourage open space, greenbelt and lawn irrigation because of their aesthetic values so much desired by the citizens of Fort Collins. II. The Water Board is committed to cost effective water and sewer service and to the conservative use of water and will adopt specific water conservation practices that will become appropriate from time to time considering changing circumstances. The Board has, for example, considered the desirability of requiring water meters for all services, and finds under present circumstances this step is neither cost effective nor necessary. Other alternatives in meeting water demands are presently preferrable. The time may come, however, when this practiee may become desirable. 100% Recycled Bond Mr. Les Kaplan Page 2 November 19, 1976 Using the foregoing as an example (from Item B-3, Conservation of Resources, under the heading Environmental Protection, Task Force IV) we recommend that the report ought not to specify how objectives will be accomplished in any case affecting a city operating department. We believe it is unwise in principle to limit the ability of operating departments to examine and select the best alternatives for achieving given objectives. III. One or more task force objectives relate to maintaining a minimum flow in the Poudre River through the City. The Water Board has no objection to a low flow objective if it can be achieved in harmony with cost effectiveness and maximum utility of resource objectives. The water system of the Poudre River is famous for its resource -use efficiency, with each acre foot of water being reused approximately three times. Water Board policy is to work in harmony with other water users on the river so as to maximize utility of the limited supply for the good of all. It will soon become necessary, for example, for the City to "reuse" certain of its water in complicated exchange arrangements with other water users. It is quite possible that a minimum flow objective for the river through the City would be in conflict with the cost effectiveness and maximum utility objectives behind such an exchange. Similarly, the sequential use of irrigation water, first by the City and then by an irrigation company, will probably become a viable option for meeting new water demands without taking from agriculture. One cost of such a practice might well be a dry section of stream at certain periods of time. We therefore recommend that the minimum flow objectives be qualified so as not to inadvertently conflict with the highest and best use of the water, the exchange of water, greenbelts, open space, aesthetics, and the maintenance of a strong agricultural based community, nor the objective of maximum utilization of limited total supply. IV. The Water Board is concerned about the growth management recommendations which include an outline of an urban service area and an urban fringe area. The concept is fine but we are not prepared to recommend specifically where those lines ought to be located. We feel that the lines as proposed may not be optimum for water and sewer service projections. We therefore recommend that the growth management task force confer with the Water Board on this matter prior to making a final recommendation. WATER BOARD I November 8, 1976 TO: Fort Collins Water Board FROM: Water Board Engineering Committee RE: Joe Wright Dam Plans and Specifications The undersigned members of the Fort Collins Water Board Engineering Committee have reviewed the proposed plans and specifications for the Joe Wright Dam as prepared by McCall -Ellingson and Morrill, Inc. We find these documents to be professionally prepared and all aspects of construction to be properly addressed. Specifications are explicit in covering quality workmanship and assuring full safety and environmental protection. We feel that the Water Board should accept the plans and specifications and recommend their approval by the City Council thereby releasing the project for construction subject to fund availability. Respectfully submitted, Norman Evans "Everett Richardson CCU l.�- '"L- i ✓_ ..�!'/ J 1 12L�_ Harvey 35 ns.o