Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/15/1993r WATER BOARD MINUTES October 15, 1993 3:00 - 4:43 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Council Liaison Gerry Horak Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present MaryLou Smith, Acting President, Dave Stewart, Terry Podmore, Dave Frick, Tom Brown, Dave Bartholow, Paul Clopper Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, Andy Pineda, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Bill Emslie, Executive Engineer, Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Bryan Blakely, Corporate Attorney, PRPA George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent Neil Grigg, President, Tim Dow, Ray Herrmann, Howard Goldman Acting President MaryLou Smith opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Dave Stewart moved that the minutes of September 17, 1993 be approved as distributed. After a second from Dave Frick, the Board voted unanimously to accept the motion. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed several handouts from the District: a list of the Board of Directors of the NCWCD with term expiration dates; an information sheet with precipitation within the District as of October 9th, storage comparisons, C-BT inflow and delivery comparisons, and deliveries; a brochure with NCWCD general information; and the Southern Water Supply Project Newsletter. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Bigham specifically pointed out the 113 % of normal combined flows number which shows that storage is up in both east and west slope reservoirs, and indicates a good supply going into next water year. He was especially pleased that Granby is still at 80% of full. "We will be bringing that water over all winter with the anticipation of filling both Horsetooth and Carter." Next he referred to the inflow and delivery comparisons. He noted that the District has received 314,000 Ac-ft in Granby Reservoir compared to only 200,000 Ac-ft last year. One of his handouts listed the board of directors. He announced that the new director is Marjorie Knievel from the Berthoud area. The president of the parent district is Bill Bohlender and the vice president is John Caneva. The president of the sub -district is Bill Farr, and Ray Joyce from Boulder is vice president. Mr. Bigham called the Board's attention to the Southern Water Supply Project newsletter which provides details about the project. He reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a Centennial National Wildlife Refuge on the South Platte at the Weld and Morgan County lines. That is the site of the "infamous" Narrows Project that probably will never be built. F&WS is proposing a 15,000 acre refuge for wildlife with the thought of creating additional wetlands. There are about 125 acres of actual farm land that they also hope to include. The problem with this proposal, "as you have learned in dealing with the FS on the renewal permit on Joe Wright Reservoir," is if there hasn't been a federal reserve right, the plan has been to try to get water through a permit system by "extortion." "This could be similar to another Wild & Scenic designation," he contends. If this refuge, which straddles a large portion of the South Platte River, were approved and "they put in any anti -degradation laws and rules, any water between that point and up here would almost forego any kind of development on the South Platte. It would also affect the Poudre since it's a tributary, as well as the St. Vrain, the Left Hand, and the Big and Little Thompson. The District is quite concerned about this proposal, not because they are opposed to the refuge. If proper protection isn't included, "it could prevent development up and down the river," he insisted. Mr. Bigham said that District representatives toured the area recently, "and the concept is beautiful," but judging from what the F&WS is proposing, they will have total control of what will be done, and if in fact they are able to get Congress to go along with the very stringent EPA and water quality regulations, "it will be very detrimental to this upper area." He concluded that this proposal will be in the developmental stage for quite some time. He will try to keep the Board informed about any movement. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 3 Tom Brown wondered if the refuge development is a water quality issue per se, and would it affect water quantity through lack of dilution; what's the logic there? It appears that one of the efforts that the F&WS is pushing would be to create the refuge and then require a very stringent quality of water to run through the refuge, Mr. Bigham replied. "They are actually talking about a stricter quality of water than the river currently has. In fact they would like to designate it as swimmable, fishable which is obviously ridiculous at that point in the river," he asserted. In terms of quality, "you could affect that by a percentage if you increase the flows," he explained. MaryLou Smith thanked Mr. Bigham for his report and welcomed his return after a two -month absence. Engineering Committee Report - (Halligan Reservoir) Because Dave Stewart had to leave early he asked to give his Engineering Committee report at this time. Currently the Committee is not working on many things, he said, but they are prepared to review any projects staff asks them to. In that context, he asked if there was an update on Halligan Reservoir. Mike Smith reported that City Council is scheduled to consider the agreement with North Poudre on November 2nd. Election of Officers MaryLou Smith was asked to chair the meeting through the election of officers because President Neil Grigg is out of the country and the vice president of the Board retired from the Board in July. She stated that Neil Grigg was willing to be nominated for re-election, but stressed that he would not be offended if the Board chose another president. With that introduction, she opened nominations for president. Terry Podmore nominated Neil Grigg. Dave Stewart seconded the nomination. Ms. Smith asked for further nominations. Mr. Podmore moved that nominations cease, with a second from Mr. Stewart. Dr. Grigg was re-elected unanimously to serve his fourth year as president. Ms. Smith then opened nominations for vice-president. Tom Brown nominated MaryLou Smith. Dave Stewart moved that nominations cease. Terry Podmore provided a second. Ms. Smith vacated the chair to nominate Dave Stewart. For the lack of a second to his nomination, the nominations ceased. MaryLou Smith was elected unanimously to serve as vice-president of the Board, and as a result, she continued to conduct the meeting. Platte River Power Authority's Water Resources Plan Dennis Bode introduced Bill Emslie, Executive Engineer and Bryan Blakely, Corporate Attorney from PRPA. Mr. Emslie distributed copies of their updated Water Resources Plan and Policy Background Paper, and historical information on the Windy Gap Project. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 4 Bryan Blakely began by providing a brief history of PRPA and how it had entered into its water resources plan. PRPA was the brainchild of Stan Case, a former director of Light and Power. It was created in the mid to late 1960s by four area cities: Estes Park, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) up to that time had supplied all of the electrical power requirements of those four cities from hydro -electric projects, including the CBT project. It was determined that if the cities continued to grow, BOR would be unable to meet the electric loads. PRPA has been an entity "that has gathered resources," which included money for financing and water for generation of power. There was a need for water, but there was no clear idea as to what the water was going to be used for; no specific project. Furthermore, there was no exhaustive study done to ascertain how much water was needed. This was the time when PRPA thought about becoming involved in the Windy Gap Project. Sixteen thousand acre feet of water happened to be available, the source of which was with three of the four cities. When Windy Gap became successful, PRPA ended up with more surplus on its hands than it otherwise might have because of the reuse plan. Bill Emslie gave his presentation on current water uses and PRPA options for its surplus water. He summarized the table on p. 2 (attached) as follows: The water resources PRPA currently owns are 16,000 AF of the Windy Gap allocation, and a junior right decree on the Poudre River Decree of 400 AF which they don't count on each year. The 6300 AF under water exchange agreements, includes 4200 AF PRPA gets from the City as sewage effluent which is in exchange for the Windy Gap 4200, plus 2100 which is the return flow which PRPA would have received had they not given it to Anheuser-Busch. The 6300 represents pre -Memorandum of Understanding with A-B. With the Memorandum of Understanding with A-B, PRPA furnishes the return flows of 2100 AF to A-B, and PRPA receives the reusable effluent from A-B of 800 AF (second use Windy Gap water). The total water resources available at WWTP No. 2 is 5,000 AF per year. He went on to say that PRPA also pumps 900 AF per year from Windy Gap directly via Soldier Canyon to Rawhide as process water. This water does not go to either A-B or the City, he stressed. PRPA has 5900 AF of water available to it each year; 5,000 from WWTP No. 2 and 900 from Horsetooth. Next Mr. Emslie explained how PRPA uses the water. Of the 5000 AF available, PRPA pumps 2510 on the average to Rawhide. Basically they get an average of 890 AF from Soldier Canyon for use at Rawhide. They augment the Poudre River at 220 AF per year. Through the delivery agreement with Larimer County, the County now has water available to them for gravel pit augmentation; up to 100 AF per year. The total of all of those numbers is 3,720 AF, but "keep in mind" that you must subtract the 890 from 3720 to get what is left at WWTP No. 2, or 2170 AF. The meaningful number is 2,170 - Table 1 latte River Water Resourcend Usesa Annual Total (AF) Windy Gap (Actual) Only (AF)b 1. Water Resources Owned a. Windy Gap Allocation 16,000 16,000 b. Poudre River Decree' 400c c. Net Total 16,000 16,000 2. Water Exchange Agreements a. Reuse Agreement Reusable Effluent from Fort Collins under Reuse Plan (4,200 AF for Windy Gap exchange plus 2100 AF Windy Gap return flow) 6,3W Windy Gap Water Provided to Fort Collins (4,200) b. Memorandum of Understanding (with Anheuser-Busch) Return Flows furnished to Anheuser-Busch under Memorandum of Understanding (2,100) Reusable Effluent from Anheuser-Busch 800 c. Net Total (1.300) d. Total Water Resources Available at Sewage Treatment 5,000 Plant No. 2 (STP No. 2) 3. Current Water Uses SIP a. Consumptive Use at Rawhide from No. 2 (2,510d) b. Augmentation to Poudre River (Reuse Plan, delivered at STP No. 2) (190) c. Windy Gap to Rawhide (Process Water) delivered via Soldier Canyon (Horsetooth Reservoir) (890) (900) d. Headquarters Well Exchange to Poudre River (30) e. Del}ver��ment with ri County (100)e f. Tot((a�l`l Current Water Uses (3,720) (5,100) 4. Current Annual Unused Resources (at STP No. 2) I [Exchange Agreements (2.d.) -Uses at STP No. 2 (3a+3b+3d+3e)] 2,170d S. Windy Gap Water Held For Future Generation (4,060) (4,060) 6. Total Current Water Uses (3.0 + Water Held for Future Generation (S) (7,780)d (9,160) 7. Windy Gap Surplus (l.a.-6) F6,940 8. Total Water Surplus 8,220d [Water Resources (i.e.) - Total Current and Future Uses (6)] a Rounded to tens of acre-feet; all figures are approximate based on assumed average years. b Does not include reuse water. Not sufficiently available to warrant inclusion in annual figures. d As discussed in more detail in the text below, although actual experience to date indicates 2,510 acre-feet per year is what has been typically pumped to Rawhide from STP No. 2, we believe 4,200 acre-feet continues to be an appropriate figure for planning purposes. e Agreement is for up to 100 acre-feet, commencing October 1993. 2 Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 5 AF of water a year of unused reuse water available to them at WWTP No. 2, that on the average is not used for other purposes. PRPA has been putting their surplus water in a storage account through North Poudre Irrigation in Fossil Creek Reservoir. The account varies annually, but the average is about 2170 AF. At the beginning of the irrigation season, around the first of June, the account zeros; in other words, it is lost. "That's a valuable resource, and we should be doing something with it," he said. Mr. Emslie then discussed options for using the surplus water. 1) Continue current practice which is do nothing 2) Long term lease (up to 10 years) 3) Seasonal rental - City cooperation We are reluctant to use the term "sell" because it's such a valuable resource, he said. The 2170 AF of water is totally consumable water. In other words, it is all foreign water that has been imported into this basin. It's new water and anybody that leases it can consume it by 100%. That makes it even more valuable depending on who the user is. Mike Smith asked what the variance is on the 2170. "The variance is fairly significant," Mr. Emslie replied. "It's been as low as 900 and as high as 4,000." Part of that depends on how much PRPA chooses to pump at Rawhide, and if they are trying to make up for excessive evaporation loss in a dry year. However, there has been a water management concern and "we could probably smooth that variance out a little more," he admitted. Mr. Emslie then drew the Board's attention to resolution A which points out that PRPA has surplus reuse water available annually as a return flow at WWTP No. 2. In that resolution they propose some options including leasing the water for a term of up to 10 years. Platte River, being owned by Fort Collins, Loveland, Estes Park and Longmont, always offers any surplus water to these cities first; then to other public not for profit entities within the sub -district, and finally other entities. Mr. Emslie had visited the staffs of the three other cities besides Fort Collins, and received many useful suggestions on how PRPA might use the water. Essentially PRPA has felt uncomfortable about competing directly with the rental market in which the staffs of the four cities that own PRPA are active. Because of this it was suggested that PRPA work cooperatively with the staffs and try to make arrangements that would allow the cities to lease the water for PRPA and share in any proceeds from the leases at some fair, yet to be determined level. "In Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 6 this way we would continue to preserve the municipal markets that are leasing water in this area," he stressed. At the same time it would give Platte River an opportunity to cooperate with all four of the cities in dealing with the surplus water. He mentioned that Estes Park with their limited staff would only be interested in participating in some kind of a mutual leasing program. Between now and October 27th PRPA is asking the four Cities for comments on Resolution A as to whether that concept seems to be acceptable and also any other remarks. He asked Water Board members to call Dennis Bode who will then relay the comments and suggestions to Mr. Emslie. Mr. Emslie then returned to the table on p. 2 where another surplus, the Windy Gap surplus, is listed. He reiterated that of the 16,000 AF supply that PRPA acquired from the cities in 1974, they provide Fort Collins with a 4200 in -lieu -of cash payment under the reuse plan. They also pump an additional 900 AF to Rawhide directly. Every year they pump 5100 AF of Windy Gap. Black & Veatch, their consulting engineers for Rawhide informed them that if they were ever to build a future power plant at Rawhide, they would need approximately 2,030 AF per 250 megawatt units. Therefore, for two more units they would need about 4,060 AF of water. "We don't know if that is where the next unit in Colorado will be built," he acknowledged. What PRPA has decided is that wherever the next power plant is built in Colorado, it is likely to be a joint venture among some of the utilities in the State. Like the reuse surplus water it doesn't make sense to hold on to the Windy Gap surplus water and not productively use it, Mr. Emslie contends. "We're paying debt service on that and some operating costs as well," he added. The surplus ought to be available to produce some revenue if possible. Under the water bank concept, PRPA would hold the water for eventual return to the cities that originally conveyed water to Platte River under the water transfer agreements of 1974. In those agreements there is a stipulation that if PRPA ever chooses to eliminate some of its Windy Gap supply, that it offer the water back to those cities. Fort Collins went with 80 units, and Loveland and Estes Park 40 units each, which make up PRPA's 160 units. Longmont did not transfer water to PRPA. Under surplus resolution B, PRPA would offer the water to the three cities, and then to Longmont. That would be the fast use of that water on a more permanent basis under the water bank concept. However, since discussions with the cities have indicated that they have enough water for the time being, PRPA might choose under the resolution to do a long term lease or perhaps year-to-year rental of the Windy Gap supply. "This resolution would give us options to also lease for a long term; perhaps up to ten years or more," he pointed oui. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 7 Again, as with reuse surplus resolution A, Mr. Emslie solicited staff and Water Board comments through Dennis Bode. Tom Brown asked who might be possible customers to lease the effluent surplus water. Mr. Emslie mentioned several possibilities without naming specific clients, and those options included well augmentation, gravel pit augmentation, and for irrigation and recreational uses. "I'm certain there are markets available out there now," Mr. Emslie remarked. MaryLou Smith thanked Mr. Emslie and Mr. Blakely for their presentations and asked them to keep staff and the Board informed of any developments. She also reminded Board members to address their comments on the surplus water options to Dennis Bode before Oct. 19th. Update: Consideration of Purchase Related to Meadow Springs Ranch Ms. Smith asked if it was necessary to go into executive session. Mike Smith related that the item is on the Council's agenda summary, so it has become public. The Council will be discussing it at their next meeting. Meadow Springs Ranch is 25,680 acres of land of which the City owns 18,130 acres outright, and owns the lease from the State Land Board for 7,550 acres. The City received an offer to purchase outright the 7,550 acres of State land at $100/acre. Special Projects Manager Tom Gallier asked the appraiser to look at the land from two angles: the Ranch as a unit and the State Land Board land separately. Mike Smith reported that the Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee met prior to the Water Board meeting today and discussed the purchase. Staff had received the appraisal data which turned out to be somewhat complicated, he said. Essentially the state land was appraised at $100/acre, but "if we sold that piece by piece or separately, whoever bought it would have to fence it, so there is a deduction for that of about $20.00." However, he pointed out that if the City purchased it, "we wouldn't have to fence it." Is the State land really worth $100/acre? Mr. Smith admitted that the Committee struggled with that question initially, but then they began to focus on the benefit of the whole project: primarily the need to "clean up" the state Land Board land in terms of managing the project. The other issue the Committee wanted to pursue as quickly as possible was the sale of the east half of the property which is around 4600 acres. The appraisal on that came to approximately $725,000 which is close to the $755,000 that the City is proposing to pay for the west side property which is 7,550 acres. The reason the east side land is appraised higher is because it is basically a self contained unit; it has structures, and sub -irrigated land is worth more money. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 8 The Committee also wanted to determine the resource value of the wetlands on the north part of the eastern property, so there is some kind of provision for dealing with that portion if we wanted to separate it from the parcel. The group agreed to ask the Natural Resources Board to decide what the value is, and if it is worth protecting. Tom Gallier was in the process of preparing a memo for the Council stating the Committee's unanimous recommendation that the Council proceed with the acquisition, and that the City also pursue the sale of the property on the east side of I-25. MaryLou Smith reminded the Water Board that at the last meeting they authorized the Water Planning Committee to make the decision as to whether they would advise Council to proceed with the acquisition. The item now goes to the Council for their decision. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that September was a relatively wet month. Water use was 71 % of average, and year to date we are at 85% of what was projected. Forest Service Special Use Permit - Report on Forum Mike Smith was pleased that so many Water Board members attended the Forest Service Special Use Permit forum. He asked those who were present to share their impressions of the meeting. All agreed that Mike Smith did a good job of presenting the City's case. Near the end of the meeting he was the first panelist to suggest that the opposing groups meet and try to reach an equitable compromise. Dave Frick thinks that we need to convince the "special interest groups" that what we are proposing is really beneficial. "I came out of the meeting thinking they were misinformed," he stated. He added that, in his opinion, they were making their decisions on the principle of the issue rather than the facts. MaryLou Smith asked if he meant the "party line approach." "Yes," he replied, "and I think we can show them that that approach in this case may actually be detrimental to the environment." John Bartholow said "he would second that." Although he didn't agree with everything the Trout Unlimited representative said, Mr. Bartholow was pleased that he was willing to sit down and negotiate. He thinks that deserves some consideration. Paul Clopper recalled that with the exception of the person from the Wilderness Society, the rest of the special interest groups seemed to be willing to listen on a case by case basis. They didn't appear to come prepared with specific facts and figures as the folks from the municipalities and Water Supply & Storage had, he observed. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 9 Tom Brown was struck with how the endangered species in Nebraska keeps ending up being a focus of this issue of Joe Wright management. "The biological opinion that we're waiting for from the Fish & Wildlife Service could have a significant impact on the end result," he stressed. "Joe Wright and Nebraska seem to be very far apart, and there doesn't seem to be any way to assure that any water we release at Joe Wright would ever end up in Nebraska." He is worried that the problem of understanding what happens to water in Joe Wright may be overlooked because of these emotional concerns about endangered species. "In other words, the general principles may overwhelm the facts. It's such a technical issue, which makes it very difficult to explain to environmental groups, and the public in general." MaryLou Smith asked if the City appeared to come across as being concerned about the environment. "I think Mike Smith ended on a very positive note in terms of identifying the joint proposal that's being put forward that would at least potentially enhance the main stem of the Poudre," John Bartholow pointed out. He thinks Mr. Underwood of the Forest Service has an obligation to address endangered species. He could choose to do it less wholeheartedly if he wanted to, but "I think he's essentially flexing his muscles against the Madigan Policy and what he felt was perhaps a constriction of rights or his local authority," Mr. Bartholow surmised. On the other hand no matter what happens, unless it's very carefully crafted, he is likely to get sued by either side. Mr. Frick agreed that Mr. Underwood is walking a tightrope. Mr. Smith announced that it is rumored that the biological draft may be out next week. He ended on a positive note by saying that he felt that various representatives at the forum seemed receptive to at least talking about the issues. Update on Thornton Case Decision Dennis Bode reported that there was a decree conference a week ago on Wednesday when the judge started hearing specific issues. They are beginning to bring some numbers into focus, he said. He thinks there have been several meetings after that of various groups from the Northern District and Fort Collins. He understands that the judge has decided several outstanding issues. Some of his decisions were somewhat in the middle. For the most part the objectors came out in pretty good shape. John Bigham agreed with Mr. Bode's summary. "I think for the most part, we came out pretty well in this decision, but it's a long ways from being finished," he added. Committee Reports Water Supply Tom Brown reported that the Committee met prior to the Board meeting. Mr. Brown was selected to fill the vacant chair's position. The Committee discussed possible topics that it could address in the coming months. They added two possibilities to the Water Board Work Plan list approved last November. " • • Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 10 They will address an issue at their next meeting which they hadn't heard of previously relating to Sheep Creek Reservoir in the Poudre Basin. A decision needs to be made by the City on this reservoir by June, 1994. "You will be hearing more about that," he said. The Committee expects to be focusing again on Halligan Reservoir once the Council makes a decision on the agreement with North Poudre. They spent the rest of the time discussing the Joe Wright situation, specifically concentrating on the joint operation plan that the City and other entities have put forward as a kind of mitigation for the fact that Joe Wright stores water in the winter and in the spring. Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education No report Cost of Service Ad Hoc Committee Scott Harder reported that the Committee met in September and discussed some of the details of the draft water cost of service analyses. Next they will explore the wastewater side. Some issues emerged on Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) that staff is researching and will report on at the next meeting. Another issue came up on the cost of service for CSU which staff is also investigating in more detail. The Committee will meet again in November. MaryLou Smith asked to be refreshed about the mission of this committee. "As I understand it," she said, "the committee will do some preliminary work to try to determine what it costs to serve different groups and classifications so that we will be prepared to make decisions about rates at some point once we get more customers metered." "That's right," Mr. Harder replied. During recent development of cost of service models, various policy issues arose, including inside/outside rates, how to treat some of our large industrial customers, etc. Staff enumerated a number of policy issues, and on that basis set up this committee to look into the details and direct staff to do any additional analyses required. The Committee will try to come to a consensus and bring recommendations back to the Board. Regional Water Supply Strategy Update MaryLou Smith asked if staff was aware of Gov. Romer's attempt to form a 40 member forum that would try to look at water supply strategies for northern Colorado and the metro area. John Bigham said that Larry Simpson from the District, is one of those members. According to the newspaper account, the Governor suggested that "we continue the pipeline all the way down to the metro area." Although he has been told about the boundary restrictions, etc., he doesn't seem to accept those barriers to a pipeline. However, Mr. Bigham stressed that at this point, the group is just trying to get organized. Water Board Minutes October 15, 1993 Page 11 Regional Wastewater Service Issues No report Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:43 P.M. Water Board Secretary