HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/20/1981Regular Water Board Meeting
November 20, 1981
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Ward Fischer, Norm Evans, Tom Moore, George Wallace,
Henry Caulfield, David Stewart (alt.), Bernie Cain,
Ray Anderson.
MEMBERS ABSENT Harvey Johnson, Chuck Turner, Ev Richardson.
REPRESENTATIVES FROM
WATER CONSERVATION BOARD David Walker, Emilie Ailts
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry Horak
STAFF PRESENT John Arnold, Roger, Krempel, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode,
Curt Miller, Ben Alexander, Chuck Inghram, Max Grimes,
Bill Tomerlin, Andy Pineda, Molly Nortier.
MEDIA Mark Radke, KCOL; Niki Mott, Triangle Review;
Craig Young, CSU Collegian.
GUESTS Mort Bittinger, Resource Consultants, Inc.
Terry Trembly, Larimer/Weld Council of Governments.
Minutes Approved.
Poudre Feasibility Study Discussion
Roger Krempel suggested that a letter of summary be sent to David Walker of the
Water Conservation Board reinforcing the concerns and questions that were expressed
at the meeting regarding the Poudre Feasibility Study.
It was also suggested that some key people meet with some key legislators to try to
resolve some of the legislative history questions.
In -Lieu -of Water Rights
Following a short discussion, Bernie Cain moved that the 4Jater Board recommend to
the City Council that the in -lieu -of cash payment be changed to $1700 per acre foot.
After a second from Henry Caulfield, the Motion was approved unanimously.
Curt Smith. Director of Planning & Development, Regarding Out-of-Ci
It was requested that the staff develop a standard paragraph to be distributed along
with out -of -city service requests stating the Water Board's position that it is not
their function to make land use judgements, and that they will continue to recommend
acceptance or rejection of a request specifically from a water utilities service
point of view.
Water Board Minutes
November 20, 1981
Page two
Staff Reports
A. Pretreatment Program - Max Grimes
Max Grimes gave a progress report on the last five years in industrial waste
control. He said that he and his colleagues were coming close to finalizing
what the Utilities' recommendation is going to be. Subsequently, this recom-
mendation will be submitted to the City Council. He stressed that writing a
compreshensive ordinance was the key to developing a program that will be easy
to work with. After Mr. Grimes answered questions from the Board, George
Wallace moved that the Board recommend endorsement of the pretreatment concept
and program. Following a second from Ray Anderson, the Board voted unanimous-
ly for approval. Water Board members will eventually receive copies of the
ordinance.
Special Presentation
t
Max Grimes will be leaving the City soon to begin a new job in Colorado Springs.
The Water Board presented Max with a letter of appreciation for his outstanding
contribution to the City of Fort Collins.
Committee Reports
A. Water Credits Committee
Since the staff had not had a chance to analyze Ray Anderson's status report
on diversion, the Board will discuss the report at the next regular'meeting.
Ray Anderson listed some corrections in the report that he wanted changed on
copies that had been distributed to the members and staff. Henry Caulfield
asked that the question of City ownership of ditch company shares be explored
further.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 P.M.
nttZ /
Water Board Secretary
SUMMARY
Water Board and City Council Meeting
with
State Water Conservation Board
Friday, November 20, 1981, 12:00 noon
David Walker, Assistant Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
summarized the present status of the Poudre Study and what the plans are for the
near future at a recent joint meeting of the Fort Collins Water Board and City
Council. He explained that the Water Conservation Board is currently negotiating
a contract with Tudor Engineering, the firm selected to do the study.
Mr. Walker continued by emphasizing the importance of the advisory group chosen
to provide reaction and input during the various steps of the study process;
particularly at key decision points. City Councilman Gerry Horak and Water Board
Member Ev Richardson are local representatives of the advisory group.
Mr. Walker reported that most of the first year will be spent trying to develop a
sound engineering and economic analysis which will become the basis for decisions
as to whether to continue or how to shape the rest of the process. It is hoped
that Tudor Engineering will have a recommendation ready for the legislative session
in January of 1983. This will be the first step in a four year planning process.
He pointed out the crucial elements of the Poudre Study to be water rights, hydro
power, and benefit -cost analysis. In addition, he stressed that the Poudre study
is a basin study, not a basin -wide comprehensive study. As a result, he acknow-
ledged that many tough political questions will remain to be answered later on in
the study.
Following Mr. Walker's presentation, the questions and concerns that were dis-
cussed are listed below:
* A valid or proper discount rate for the economic analysis should be used since
a poor choice could affect the evaluation of alternatives.
* In the context of the cost -benefit analysis, it was suggested that the analysis
include to whom the benefits are directed. In other words, who gets the bene-
fits from additional water, additional electricity, flood protection, recreation,
etc.
* Will the benefit -cost analysis to be used on the Poudre and Hardin studies be
consistent with the approach used by the Board for the benefit -cost analysis in
the overall South Platte assessment, recognizing that the South Platte assess-
ment was done on a much broader reconnaissance level?
* The cost -benefit analysis should take into consideration the potential effect
of the Narrows Project and the resulting smaller water supply benefits to this
area.
* How will the Colorado Water Conservation Board look at the widely held view
that Colorado should develop all water rights entitled to the state under the
various compacts? Will the benefit -cost ratio be used in determining the
feasibility of the project?
1
Summary of Meeting A Water Conservation Board •
Page two
* It is hoped that the Colorado State University computer model can be used to
help evaluate a number of possible alternatives resulting in no further ex-
pense in developing other models.
* It was suggested that the indirect benefits in the cost -benefit analysis be
recognized.
* Considerable discussion revolved around including a wide range of alternatives
in the study, in one way or another, realizing that there are economic and
legislative restraints. It was concluded that studying the alternatives.is-
critical to getting an eventual political decision from all points of view;
including water interest groups, environmental concerns, the agricultural com-
munity, and the municipal interest.
* In the context of the legislative restraints, it may be possible to check with
some legislators to clarify the legislative history.
Mr. Walker responded that currently, the Water Conservation Board does not have
the staff or the capability to answer many of these problems. However, they intend
to augment their staff and hire outside help for the whole area of cost analysis.
Water Board Member Norm Evans reported that he had met with Tudor and discussed
the simulation technology that his Department has developed at CSU. Initially,
the consultants believed that the technology was not adequate to handle the job
of examining the alternatives, particularly the operational aspects of it. Follow-
ing their meeting, Mr. Evans felt assured that hey had convinced the consultants
that the technology available is, in fact, equivalent or better than the Corps of
Engineers' technology for all the uses the consultants may wish to make of it,
other than some areas of cost evaluation.
Mr. Walker ended the meeting by stating how pleased he was that Mr. Evans had
resolved the situation with the consultant. Furthermore, he made it clear that the
candid dialogue at this meeting had made his trip to Fort Collins worthwhile and
that he would take back all the questions and concerns from the group for discuss-
ion with the Board. He also indicated that it might be necessary to talk further
with some legislators in regard to the legislative history.
Mr. Walker suggested that the Fort Collins City Council and Water Board may want
to meet again with the Water Conservation Board prior to the interim report.
Water Board Secretary