Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/18/1993• .._ _t . W ,_t I ulI�l llY June 18, 1993 3:00-5:30PM Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Water Board Liaison Gerry Horak Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present Tom Sanders, Vice President, MaryLou Smith, Mark Casey, Tim Dow, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Terry Podmore, MaryLou Smith, Paul Clopper, Dave Stewart, Dave Frick Staff Rich Shannon, Dennis Bode, Keith Elmund, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Tom Gallier, Roger Buffington, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier Guests Mayor Ann Azari John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District In the absence of President Neil Grigg, Vice President Tom Sanders opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Paul Clopper laughingly pointed out the phrase, 'crustaceans in the water lines" on p. 12, paragraph 4. Obviously the word should be "encrustations." Tom Sanders objected to the word "quipped" used in context with a quote from him on p. 14, paragraph 3. Tim Dow moved that the minutes of May 21, 1993 be approved as corrected. The motion was seconded and the minutes were approved unanimously. Member Absent President Neil Grigg, Excused Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed the East Slope/West Slope streamflow numbers as of June 16. The sheet also listed project deliveries for Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake and Project Reservoir storage. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 2 He pointed out that as of June 16th, the east slope stream flow total was 3,955 CFS, as compared to 1,885 in 1992, and 3,668 in '91. The west slope totals for the Colorado at Granby, Willow Creek inflow and the Fraser were 2,678 CFS. Pumping totals for Willow Creek and Windy Gap were 656 CFS. He reported that the total maximum active capacity for Horsetooth, Carter Lake and Boulder Reservoir is 270,626 Ac-ft. Horsetooth is 89% filled and Carter is at 84%. He said that Granby Reservoir is now at 465,568 Ac-ft, and will fill to within about 3 ft. of the spillway. Mr. Bigham related that the snow water equivalent above 11,000 ft. elevation on the Fraser Basin is 13 in. He went on to say that one pump is still in operation until June 30th at the Windy Gap Project. The District will pump approximately 24,000 Ac-ft for the 60 days total for May and June. He also reported that 17,000+ Ac-ft could be available for rent by CBT users at a $15/AF rental fee. "The Southern Water Supply Project is moving ahead," he said. "Rights -of -way acquisition is in progress, but there continue to be some controversies on several parcels of land," he concluded. Since there were no questions from the Board, Dr. Sanders thanked Mr. Bigham for his update and moved to the next item. Water Quality Policy The City Council established the Council/Water Board Water Quality/Water Treatment Master Plan Committee in November of 1992 by resolution. Council members were Loren Maxey, Gerry Horak and Bob Winokur, and Tim Dow, Tom Sanders and Paul Clopper represented the Water Board on the committee. The Committee has been meeting since December, 1992. Staff began by briefing the Committee on the history of water quality regulations, significant water quality milestones, background on specific water quality parameters, the status and impact of drinking water regulations, and the impact of regulations on operating costs. Tim Dow had reported earlier that he believes the general thrust of the policy will be to continue on the course that the City has been on, which is to do as much testing as they are able to do technically, and keep several steps ahead of the standards. The draft policy in the packets today is the result of many hours of discussions, and struggling with the content and format of several different drafts. Tom Sanders asked if any of the Water Quality Committee members or staff had comments about the final draft. Dr. Sanders emphasized the importance of establishing a water quality policy, and we, as a City have come Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 3 a long way with this document, he said. He also said that the Cross Connection Control program being discussed today is an important step in ensuring the safety and quality of our water. "I am appalled that this is just now being addressed," he added. It should be noted that three places in the Water Quality document touch on the cross connection control issue. Under the paragraph on Protecting, Developing and Preserving Water Resources it states that: The City will protect raw water sources from contamination or any other activities that would diminish the quality..." And under Operating and Maintaining the Water Distribution System it says: "The water distribution system will be planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained to protect water quality, to safeguard the long term health of the community..." Also under Assuring the Quality of Water Service: "The City will ensure that water system materials, components, processes and operations are sufficiently safe and dependable to avoid foreseeable situations that might jeopardize water quality... and, "The City will take reasonable and prudent measures to protect against the accidental or willful contamination of the water..." The goals of the policy are that: The City will provide water services that meet or exceed customer expectations for quality, quantity and reliability. The City will protect and maintain high water quality in the development of all codes, policies, plans and specifications related to the acquisition, production and delivery of water services to its customers. The City's water supply, treatment, storage, delivery and laboratory facilities will be planned designed, constructed, maintained, staffed and operated to assure safe, reliable and cost-effective service to the residents of Fort Collins and all those served by the City's water utility. The City will achieve these goals through: Effective Management Pro -active Monitoring and Testing Protecting, Developing, and Preserving Water Resources Advancing Treatment Technology and Operations Operating and Maintaining the Water Distribution System Assuring the Quality of Water Service Coordinating Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Management Cooperating with Other Water Providers and Users Annual Reporting Dave Frick questioned whether the Water Quality document addresses cost concerns as well as. water quality. Tim Dow and Tom Sanders convinced Mr. Frick that the document tempers cost concerns with water quality. They pointed out four specific areas of the policy where costs are addressed. First in the last sentence of the goals it says: "The City's water supply, treatment, storage, delivery and laboratory facilities will be planned, designed, constructed, maintained, staffed and operated to assure safe, reliable and cost-effective service to the residents of Fort Collins and all those served by the City's water utility. In the third paragraph of how to achieve Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 5 There are basically two policy issues that the water Board needs to resolve: (1) On which services will cross connection devices be required? and (2) To what level will the Utility be involved? It is important to determine whether we go with isolation or containment options. Because of the complicated and technical nature of these decisions, the Water Board decided to refer the issue to the engineering Committee. President Grigg asked the committee to begin with the major policy questions, and come back to the full Board in June with recommendations about how we structure both the program and the management arrangements. Since the May meeting the Engineering Committee has met twice, and has proposed the following recommendations: 1. Dual check valves should be installed in every single family service when a meter is installed, or when a meter is verified for flow. (These are non -testable devices.) 2. Backflow preventers installed on sprinkler systems should be inspected annually, and should be part of the normal maintenance of the system (i.e. the normal "blow out" in the fall). 3. A public education program should be implemented that includes a special program for large utility users, as well as customers with sprinkler systems. 4. An inventory of the system should be implemented to provide meaningful data on cross connections, and should include sprinkler systems, isolation devices and fire systems. The Committee also answered the questions that staff provided at the May meeting: 1. Should the Utility engage in a policy of containment of isolation? The Utility should engage in a policy of containment with isolation provided by the user. 2. Will protection be required only on hazardous service connections? No, protection should be required on all services. 3. Should the Utility require retrofit of existing fire systems? Yes. However, compliance schedules must be flexible because of potential impacts to customers. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 6 4. Should the Utility provide site inspection services? No. This should be provided by the private sector. S. Should the Utility require the consumer to prepare the plumbing? Yes, except for single family residential customers. 6. Should the Utility provide (purchase) devices? Yes, but only for containment on single family residential. 7. Should the Utility install the devices? Yes, for the containment devices with the exception of the large user. 8. Should the Utility provide or pay for the annual testing? No, this should be a function of the private sector. 9. Should the Utility pay for necessary maintenance of the device? No, this should be the responsibility of the customer. 10. What length of time should be established for compliance? The residential compliance should coincide with the meter installation program, while the larger users should be phased in over the next five years or with a transfer of ownership of the property. Staff provided a spread sheet that listed connection types to the left: single family residential, SF residential w/sprinkler, multifamily residential, MF residential w/sprinkler, commercial/industrial non hazardous, C/I hazardous, new firelines, existing FLs, public schools; and with each of those connection types, the protection required, site inspection by whom, who would prepare plumbing, who would purchase and install the device, and who would test and maintain the device, were listed, as well as relevant comments with each segment. Dr. Sanders called for discussion on the Engineering Committee's recommendations. MaryLou Smith asked how often meters need to be replaced. She saw somewhere that the life of a meter is 10 years. In the Demand Management study on how to fund the meters, when we Ll • Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 7 decided to use PIFs, "I don't recall having to replace meters in 10 years, and I can't remember how we plan to fund the replacement of meters." Jim Hibbard said that "we are currently replacing meters that were installed 15 yeas ago, and these replacements come out of capital rate components." The life expectancy of the meters we are installing now tends to be 20 yeas instead of 10. One of the advantages of the program we selected to install them over the next 15 yeas, is that they don't all wear out at the same time. "As we get 15 yeas down the road, we'll start cranking those extra meters into the capital replacement program we have now, which will only have an effect on rates at that time," he explained. MaryLou Smith wanted to clarify how the City justified the use of PIFs to pay for the installation of meters during the metering program. She recalled that we would be deferring additional plant expansion. "Is part of that equation that there would be a continual need for meter replacement?" Dennis Bode explained that the initial installation is funded by PIFs, but once the meter is in, replacements and repairs will be funded by O&M or rates. MaryLou Smith was uncertain what the function of the dual check valve was in the home. "Does it guarantee that you won't have back -flow of anything in the house, like from a photo lab, and how does that affect the sprinkler system? Do we still need a vacuum breaker?" Dave Stewart replied that the sprinkler system needs to be isolated. "If your sprinkler head sits in a low spot, and it's under water, there is a tremendous opportunity to suck fertilizer and pesticides, etc. into the home, so you want to protect the homeowner from that possibility," he said. "So the City and other users are protected by the dual check valve, but the homeowners are protected from potential landscape contamination within the home," Ms. Smith verified. "That's right," Mr. Stewart replied. If there is a dual check valve on the system, the incentive for the homeowner, if he has a sprinkler system, is much greater to protect himself, because he gets the full impact of any contamination from the sprinkler system, Tom Brown stated. "But it's nice to know that the City itself has double protection --I like that feature," Ms. Smith stated. Tom Brown pointed out that in the draft table it distinguishes between situations where the Utility would add these devices to existing structures and where the private owner would do it. The Utility would install devices for single family homes and the owner would pay for it in all other cases. "Please explain the rationale behind that distinction," he said. Dave Stewart explained that the Utility has the option to do it now, "and we would make it part of the rates because we are going to be installing meters anyway. Again, we are trying to protect the Utility. If the homeowner paid for that or had it done individually, inspection would be next to impossible." The other reason is the check valve is integral to the meter, "and we don't want the homeowner fooling around with the meter. I think it's important on a single family residence that the Utility have control," he emphasized. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 8 Tom Brown said that makes sense but why are you not proposing that the City do it for multifamily residential as well, for example? "Mainly because the size of the backflow preventer becomes so much larger and the cost goes up exponentially," Mr. Stewart replied. He added that we are required by the state to do it, and that should be a cost home by the user of the water. MaryLou Smith said, "and those folks are more likely to have a qualified plumber rather than a do-it-yourselfer." Dave Stewart said, "for example Foxfire would not set a double check themselves; they would call a plumber, or somebody who is familiar with how to do it. He acknowledged that the impacts are going to be huge on some of this, so we are doing it on almost a case by case basis to allow extended compliance. For example on a fire system, you might have an 8 or 10 in. line coming in. "So a fire sprinkler system would require a backflow preventer too?" Mark Casey asked. Yes, Mr. Stewart replied. Mr. Casey also asked if there is much opportunity for contamination coming out of fire sprinkler system. "A huge opportunity," Mr. Stewart responded. "What happens is that they rarely flush those systems, and also the pumper trucks have the capability to pump foam into the system." Terry Podmore wanted to know what the compliance time is for this? "We were supposed to be in compliance in the 60s." Dave Stewart answered. MaryLou Smith finds it hard to believe that the City has had this large liability all of these years. "This is a liability that seems greater than many we have tackled in several instances. I find it very surprising that we are just trying to comply." Mr. Stewart doesn't think that's exactly true. "For example, the sprinkler people have known for a long time that they have to have backflow preventers; the hospital has a cross connection control program, and large industries have devices to control cross connections." It's been happening; it's just that we are proposing a more aggressive and more organized approach to make sure that it's done. Has there ever been a cost/benefit analysis run on this? Tim Dow asked. Is there any record of people getting sick or injured because of cross connection contamination? "Absolutely," Tom Sanders remarked. Mr. Dow asked how theoretical this is. Dave Stewart related that in the late 70s the Parks & Rec. Dept. had hooked up a pump from City Park Lake to the City water system, as well as to the sprinkler system, without a cross connection control valve. A woman on Mulberry St. was complaining about musty water and nobody could figure out why. "That's one case locally --there are lots of cases associated with hospitals etc. that have been true cross connections," he added. "But are there documented cases where it involved just a single family residence?" Tom Brown asked. "I would guess so, but I'm not aware of any. I'm sure AWWA has some statistics on that," Mr. Stewart responded. "I think I know what you're getting at," Jim Hibbard began. "I am hearing a lot of discussion about how this relates to residential." First of all, he pointed out that a certain portion of this is mandated by the State, "so we don't have a choice." Currently the residential is not a mandated program, so what staff will try to do is determine what some of those costs may be now that there is some preliminary direction from the Engineering Committee. "This way the Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 9 Water Board can concentrate on some of the pros and cons directly related to the residential program, because as you are aware, it has a potential significant impact on all of our customers," he added. Dave Stewart emphasized that $20-30 for this device is worth it for the protection it will provide. Tom Sanders agreed. He would like staff to move as quickly as possible to get a proposal to the Water Board that they can vote on and make a recommendation to City Council. "Could we do something by next month?" he wondered. Mr. Hibbard said that staff will have a lot of the costs quantified better by the next meeting. Dr. Sanders emphasized that basically what he would like to see is how it's going to be paid for and over what time period. Consistent with the Water Quality Policy that the Board just approved he hopes that we will not only be doing what the law says but be ahead of the law by doing a top quality job, "and I think cross connections are a part of that," he added. He also wanted to inform Council to move as quickly as possible so check valves can be installed along with the metering program. Jim Hibbard explained that we have two vehicles for taking this to Council. "We are currently doing a revision of the Water Standards Construction Specifications, which also covers meter setters, that we expect will be going to Council in a few months, or we have the total cross connection control package in a month or two." Tom Sanders asked how many people are missed if we wait for two months to put the device on the meters. "In new construction we will probably install meters in about 30-40 new houses a month during the summer, and because the summer is historically the lowest time for conversions, it will probably be in the range of 40-50 a month for conversions. We might be looking at about 75 homes a month," Mr. Hibbard explained. "We might have installed approximately 350 before it's sent to Council; is there any way we can prevent that," Dr. Sanders exclaimed. "In my opinion, I wouldn't worry about those 350 because the impacts of the program are going to be so profound, that if we rush something through ---we're dealing with 20,000 connections here --I would rather make sure that we have thoroughly looked into this before we make a commitment to the program," Mr. Hibbard contends. Dr. Sanders asked if that was the feeling of Water Board? MaryLou Smith said she would like to see us move quickly. "Let's move as fast as possible but do it right with the focus on new construction and conversions as the first level, and then move on to the existing homes with meters already in," Dr. Sanders proposed. The Board agreed that staff should proceed prudently with the recommendations of the Engineering Committee. Staff was also directed to move as quickly as possible with the costs and other details of the program in order to take advantage of the on -going metering program. Staff hopes to have a proposal for the Board to review within the next two months. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 10 Handicapped Hunting Agreement Board members received an agenda summary about this agreement, along with the draft agreement in their packets. According to the background information, the Wastewater Utility purchased Meadow Springs Ranch in late 1990. For the past 3 years, the property has been leased back to the grazing association that previously owned the property. The forty square miles of land is home to over 1600 pronghorn antelope which have been hunted each year. The Division of Wildlife has stated that extreme overpopulation and eventual mass starvation would occur without routine removal of some of the antelope. The grazing lease, signed with the grazing association, grants hunting rights in order to continue game management, and to keep the Utility staff out of the hunting management program. Last year, after a new lease was negotiated, the City attorney's office asked for tighter liability restrictions in order to reduce the utility's potential liability from any future hunting accidents. The grazing assn. has been unable to obtain adequate liability insurance for this arrangement, and has informed utility staff that they would like to give up the hunting rights. Staff has received requests from Council members to look at creative alternatives to managing the hunting of pronghorn on the ranch. A revocable draft permit with Outdoor Buddies, Inc. was attached to the summary. Outdoor Buddies, Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization that assists handicapped individuals in hunting and fishing pursuits. Staff consulted with the organization several months ago, and reached agreement on a plan that would transfer to that group, the right to hunt pronghorn. The organization would establish a three tiered hunter preference system: First priority would go to bona fide handicapped hunters and their non -handicapped assistants. Second priority would go to any properly licensed hunter who is a customer of the City of Fort Collins Wastewater Utility. Third priority would go to any other properly licensed hunter, with selection being made by a lottery system to be established by Outdoor Buddies. During the seven day pronghorn season, the organization would maintain one or two individuals at check -in stations on the ranch, and would work closely with Utility staff and the Division of Wildlife on any problems. The agreement involves no monetary compensation to the Utility, and the organization charges no fees to the hunters. Although this does not reduce our potential liability to zero, it should minimize it about as much as possible. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 11 This agreement should accomplish several positive goals: (1) It assures that proper game management will continue on the ranch, which will serve to protect the long term health of the herd and prevent resource damage. (2) It keeps the Utility out of the business of managing hunting on the property, and keeps our liability to a minimum. (3) It provides a benefit to handicapped hunters, which will be in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. (4) It provides a system of preference for customers of the Wastewater Utility who ultimately paid for the property. (5) It establishes an equitable system to apportion hunting to any other individuals who desire to hunt pronghorn on the ranch, assuming that any hunting permits remain. Tom Gallier, Special Projects Manager, asked the Board if they had questions or comments about the proposal. The Utility would like a recommendation from the Board to take to the Council. Tom Sanders asked if there would be cattle grazing on the property during the hunting period. "What happens if a hunter shoots one of the cattle?" Mr. Gallier explained that the agreement should minimize the City's liability, but he added that it's a risk that has been there all along. Typically what landowners do, is if the hunter is honest and admits the mistake, they work it out among themselves. Of course the more serious risk is a human being injured by a hunter. Dr. Sanders asked if the Outdoor Buddies group has a problem getting the liability insurance. "No, in fact they don't carry liability insurance," Mr. Gal ier replied. They rely on the protection that is built into the State statutes which are pretty good for a non-profit charitable organization involved in something like this. "That's really the creative key to all of this," he explained. "However, they do become liable to us if they get sued and we get drawn into a lawsuit with them," he added. For clarification, will this organization manage all the hunting? Terry Podmore asked. "Yes," Mr. Gallier replied. To what extent was the liability discussed or negotiated? Tim Dow asked. The indemnification provision in the agreement doesn't really give the City anything because, as a non-profit organization, this outfit probably has few if any assets, which means if there ever was a claim, Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 12 the indemnification is "an empty glass of water," Mr. Dow asserted. Because of this he believes that the City should have a requirement in the agreement that the organization carry some kind of liability insurance and name the City as co-insurer. The group relies on statutory language from the Colorado Revised Statutes relating to property owners and other groups that assist in allowing hunting to occur that they control, but don't charge a fee; in other words where there is no exchange of money or no profit is made, Mr. Gallier explained. Our attorneys felt if we were very clear in this agreement that there was no money exchanged between us and the group, and no money exchanged between the group and their members and those people who hunt there, that under that statutory provision, we would have maximum protection, he continued. He added that most landowners in the State do collect a small fee from hunters that come onto their land; "I think it's called a trespass fee." According to our attorneys, the only way to completely eliminate that liability is to completely eliminate hunting on the property, or to work with someone who is capable of getting and maintaining liability insurance. "The Catch 22 is that insurance is so expensive, nobody will stand good for it," he concluded. "Has the grazing association had insurance in the past?" MaryLou Smith asked. They had liability insurance, but they could not get a rider that would specifically protect them and the City against liability relating to hunting accidents, Mr. Gallier responded, and the rider is the expensive part. "Our agreement with them specifically states that they have the hunting rights, but they're only effective as long as they can show us that they meet that liability insurance coverage, so they can basically drop the hunting rights provision and it has no impact on the rest of the operation," he explained. "Somehow when a municipality is involved does that mean deeper pockets?" MaryLou Smith wondered. "That's always a potential, and I still haven't been able to clarify in my own mind how the State handles the issue other than just granting itself liability," Mr. Gallier acknowledged. Mr. Gallier continued by saying that obviously the State has property and they allow and encourage hunting to occur on the property, and there is a certain risk. But our situation is a little different in that we are not the State and we do have a lot of activities occurring on the land now and there will be more in the future. In terms of the grazing assn. being able to obtain the insurance, they have made it quite clear that it's not worth it to them. The only reason they have hassled with it in the past is because they agree with the DOW's contention that if the pronghorn population is not controlled it will get out of control very quickly and do a lot of resource damage, which has an economic impact, and at some point there would probably be a big die off. Mr. Gallier related that Mike Smith asked him to bring this to the Board because it is a policy issue. Tom Sanders asked for a motion. MaryLou Smith moved that the Water Board approve the agreement and send it on to Council, contingent on making certain that our attorneys have Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 14 survey last year, and had to revise their model because there were substantially more antelope than what they thought. There aren't that many open areas where there are fairly large concentrations of antelope that are still open for hunting. Most of the lands have been closed off by the property owners, either because they want to hunt them themselves, or because they don't want to contend with hunters coming on their land while they graze cattle there. "The City doesn't mind giving up a certain amount of the resource there to the antelope --that's not a problem. The DOW is the agency we're taking a lead from," he said. "Is cattle grazing important to the economic success of the project?" Mr. Casey asked. "It's an important part of it because the logic behind the application of sludge (the beneficial use theory) disappears if you are just applying it on open space," Mr. Gallier continued. However, you could make the argument that wildlife improvement is part of that, but the grazing, if done properly, is an important part of the eco-system because, technically, that's how the short grass prairie eco-system developed --it can be overgrazed, and it has been in the past, but some sort of grazing component is important, he concluded. Paul Clopper said he was in support of this because of what he experienced last fall when he visited the ranch. "I like the idea of a non-profit group being custodians of this type of activity, contrasted with last fall when we were observing a sludge application and we spotted someone with a bow up in a windmill," he related. "We were just hoping that the antelope wouldn't show up at that time," he laughed. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Board members received the summary in their packets. Andy Pineda reported that May's use was 91% of average, and that year to date we're at 86% of average. Update: Forest Service Special Use Permit Dennis Bode reported that staff continues to meet with the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Forest Service has submitted a biological assessment to the FWS and added an addendum to that. All the facility owners who are involved with the special use permits have made comments on the biological assessment and these have been forwarded to the FWS. "We're continuing to meet as part of the consultation process of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act," he said. We're moving into a phase where we're starting to look at what they call reasonable and prudent alternatives that address the concerns that have been identified. That process is continuing to evolve. The FWS expects to have a draft biological opinion prepared by July 7th, and a final opinion is due on August 11th. "Are they using real data below Joe Wright?" Tom Sanders asked. There has been very little real data other than the hydrological Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 15 information that has been provided, Mr. Bode replied. A lot of the issue concerns Central Nebraska, so it's a little further removed than Joe Wright. Some information has been available from the original Environmental Impact Assessment for Joe Wright. Paul Clopper asked if any site specific studies were being considered either by the FS or by the City. The Utility plans to conduct some fishery studies between Joe Wright and Chambers Reservoir, Mr. Bode said. "You mean when we go to court?" Dr. Sanders asked. "You can't get it done by July 7th or August 11th," he added. "There is another process that the Forest Service is undertaking which is more of an environmental analysis of renewing special use permits. In the next few weeks they will try to determine whether they are going to use environmental assessments or whether they need an EIS. Either way, we're hoping that some of the information we get this summer with the fishery study may be useful as we move into the fall season," Mr. Bode concluded. Information on 1994 Utility Budget No report Committee Reports Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith reported that Water Conservation Specialist Jim Clark continues to work with a sub -group of landscape contractors to come up with some guidelines as to how we look at landscape water requirements. The Committee will be meeting in September. Engineering Their report was given during the Cross Connection Control agenda item. Regional Water Supply StrategyVpd Rich Shannon reported that the Tri-district is ready to share with the City what they think are reasonable parameters for their water quality and what testing requirements they think they need. They and the Utility will be meeting soon. Regional Wastewater Service Issues Update No report Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 16 Other Business Potential for Purchase of Raw Water? Tim Dow noted that there have been a number of CBT transactions in the last two issues of the Water Intelligence Monthly, and it appears that the price has gone down somewhat. "Is there anything there for the City to look at if we have any money?" he asked. Dennis Bode said he sees quite a few transactions and they are in various sized blocks. "I think it's a matter of whether that's where we want to put our resources right now. I think the other issue is that there are some guidelines from the Northern District regarding acquisition of CBT units and our existing supplies. The way that is viewed now is that with the supply that we have, the District would probably discourage us from acquiring additional CBT units. However, if we saw an especially good opportunity that was far below the market price, we may think about pursuing it," he explained. John Bigham from the District commented that since the District Board is considering a fixed quota, it might result in a situation where some of the rules for the municipalities or the rural domestics may change. It probably will not be settled until possibly October. "That's something you should keep in mind when you consider buying CBT water." he said. Colorado Water Workshop in Gunnison Ray Herrmann announced that the Eighteenth Annual Colorado Water Workshop will meet in Gunnison, at Western State College from July 28-30. He said that Molly Nortier has a brochure with all the general information and the workshop schedule. Mr. Bigham said that the catchy title this year is "The Big Squeeze," referring to the pressure that water controversies and conflicts are putting on the state. Resolution to Adopt the Certificates' of Recognition for Tom Sanders and Mark Casey Tim Dow moved that the Water Board adopt as a formal resolution the two certificates of recognition on behalf of Tom Sanders and Mark Casey, thanking them for their service to the Water Board. MaryLou Smith seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to recognize Mark Casey and Tom Sanders for their exceptional service to the Water Board. The letters of recognition will be attached to the minutes. Adiourn The regular meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Recognition Reception for Tom Sanders and Mark Casey MaryLou Smith was asked to chair this part of the meeting. She welcomed Mayor Ann Azari who participated in honoring (roasting) Tom Sanders and Mark Casey. Tom is leaving because his term limit is up, and Mark is moving out of town. The Mayor, Board members and staff made some intriguing, funny and poignant remarks about the departing Board members. Letters Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 17 of recognition and gift certificates were presented to Mark and Tom. Each will be given a tape of the program. Tom and Mark were asked to make some parting remarks if they wished. A summary of those remarks follows: Mark Casey's Parting Comments Mark Casey said that leaving Fort Collins, even though they will not be that far away (They are moving to Niwot.) is a difficult thing for him and his family. "It's been a great place for us, and both of our children were born here," he said. "I particularly enjoyed serving with the Water Board members who are here, and those who have moved on. I have also enjoyed working with the impressive group of people who make up the Utility staff, and it was good to work with some Council members as well. There is a tremendous amount of talent here, and at times I probably haven't fully appreciated it." He continued by saying that when he got the call a few years ago saying he had been selected as an alternate on the Water Board, "I thought they had made a mistake. I didn't have the background that I thought was required, but I'm glad that it wasn't a mistake, and that I had this opportunity to serve. I think there is a place for balance. I don't think you want 11 business people, or 11 highly technical people either; balance and diversity add a lot to the Board. While I'm not going to be too far away geographically, I'm really going to miss you all," he concluded. Tom Sanders' Parting Remarks Tom Sanders began by saying that he wanted to leave with some issues he would like the group to think about. The proposed cross connection program, which had been discussed earlier, was something he just learned about a month ago. He was appointed to the Board shortly after the cross connection incident with City Park Lake. He assumed, after solving that, the City would begin immediately to develop a cross connection control program. "I think that Tom Brown is going to carry the cross on that issue, so I feel confident that it will be taken care of, particularly with the opportunity to correlate it with the metering program. I think you need to publicize it carefully so that you don't give ideas to some crazy people of how easy it is to do something bad to the water system. Our water systems in this country are very vulnerable and cross connection control is a wise and prudent policy." The next issue that concerned him was the Forest Service special use permit at Joe Wright Reservoir. "I think this is very unfair, and I hope that the Water Board stays on top of it, and gives support to the staff and the City in the way they did with the Excalibur issue. It's wrong that we may have to give up 10% of our water to the Forest Service for free in order to maintain some sort of theoretical habitat downstream." Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 18 Another important issue is Halligan Reservoir. "We still have an opportunity to make this happen, and I don't want to lose it," he began. "Most of the people here know that we have been talking about this for about 10 years. It's the last opportunity for a semi -mountain reservoir. It controls northern water coming into the City. It's an opportunity for our last dam in this century, because we don't have to go through what is required to build a new dam." "Now that I will be gone, it looks like Tim Dow will be the one to ask Dennis Bode once a month if there are any good opportunities to purchase water. I've always nagged on that. I have always been a strong advocate, and still will be for buying all the water we can. I am in favor of being a water broker by renting it to Denver or Thornton. If there's a legal way to do it, we should try it. That way we will control what happens in Northern Colorado." He next wanted to defend his stance on the Anheuser-Busch situation. When Busch was negotiating some of the issues with the City related to their locating here, the Water Board was not allowed in any of the decision -making processes, "until I raised hell and kept asking questions. They locked out a lot of the management people in the City and even some of the Council members. I found it appalling that when I went to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, I was treated like a Communist spy. Everybody was afraid to talk to me. I couldn't believe that the City was so ready to welcome Busch to the community when the population equivalent of supplying water to the company was 250,000. Eventually we were able to be heard at the very end of the negotiations. I'm not sure looking back if it was a great decision for the City to bring them here. " "One of the things I'm proudest of, and nobody remembers it, is my effort to get the Sanitary Waste Transfer Station constructed at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Frank Lancaster, who is the director of Natural Resources for Larimer County, and I worked together to accomplish that. For many years septage waste was taken to seven lagoons at the landfill. Eventually the State said it had to be shut down, and Frank said we didn't have any place to take it. We were afraid it was going to be dumped into the fields, etc. When a transfer station was suggested, the Board approved it quickly, and it wasn't long before it was built. The City was worried about their financial commitment, and now it's a money-maker. Furthermore, it solved a major problem and showed that the City and the County can work well together." Another thing Dr. Sanders is worried about is that we are losing our outside connections which we once had through the members of the Water Board. "When Tom Moore left we lost our connection with the ditch companies. For the person who takes my position, I hope they find someone who is a general shareholder with a ditch company to promote the agriculture -City alliance again." Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 19 Next he talked about his academic connection. "I challenge my students in class, and I brought that to the Board by challenging your ideas. Academia does that; they think of ideas, and challenge ideas 'in their ivory towers,' and expect others to do the practical work," he laughed. "And finally," he said, "I have had tremendous regard for the Water Board in the 12 years I've been on it. When I started with the Board, people were on the Board who had tremendous reputations: Ward Fischer, Henry Caulfield, and others, and they were actually asking my opinion about things. I was a professor in the water/wastewater area and I thought I knew this stuff, but sometimes I was overwhelmed. I still don't know the names of all the ditch companies in this area and where they all are. It took many years for me to understand what was going on. I still think there's a place for Water Board. I hope Council is smart enough to realize that you've got an awful lot of years of experience here, and all we are is advisory. If I were on the Council, I would want to get the very best Water Board I could, and the one that is independent with the most divergent views and ideas. I feel proud of what we've done in these 12 years. As I look back I can't think of a major error in something that we recommended to the Council, except meters, of course. I can't say that about my family life; I can't say that about my professional life, but with the Water Board, because we kicked things around so well, (and we all respected each other's opinions) what we came out with was excellent. I was very happy to be on the Board, and I have no bad feelings about leaving. I might consider coming back in a year, but of course that's not for sure. Thank you very much!! The reception ended at 5:35 P.M. ?nI )J-,� Water Boaid Secretary 4 Services Board WITH GRATEFUL RECOGNITION m THOMAS G. SANDERS For his Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board July 1, 1990 - July 1, 1993 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Board appreciate the thirteen years of valuable service you gave to the Community as a member, and in later years, as vice president of the Water Board. As a long time member of the Water Board, you were always deeply committed to your ideals, often demonstrating courage by clinging passionately to your convictions even when they were not "politically correct" or popular. We admired your candid, unorthodox, colorful and frequently humorous approach to the major issues we debated through the years. Your technical background was an asset to Board discussions and decisions. We commend you for your willingness to devote considerable time and energy to committee work, extra Board functions, workshops and field trips during your tenure on the Board. We will miss your enthusiasm, your tenacity and your straight -forward approach. We hope that you will continue to lend those qualities, as well as your expertise, to other community involvement. City of Fort Collins Water and Wastewater Utility Michael B. Smith, Director Fort Collins Water Board Neil S. qGrigg,�sident 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6681 Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 4 the goals we find: The City will protect raw water sources from contamination or any other activities that would diminish the quality of water provided to customers, or that would result in increased treatment costs..." The fourth paragraph states: "...protect and enhance the quality and reliability of water service and water quality, while reducing long term costs to its customers." In the fifth paragraph we read: "...to protect present and future customers from excessive financial burden..." Tim Dow and Paul Clopper echoed Dr. Sanders statement about the importance of a Water Quality Policy and stressed that there needs to be regular monitoring of water quality issues. Tim Dow moved that the Water Board recommend adoption of the Water Quality Policy. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. It was pointed out that there was a typo in the policy on p. 2, paragraph 2; "form" should be "from." After a brief discussion clarifying a couple of points, Dr. Sanders called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Water Quality Policy. Rich Shannon announced that the Council established a new consolidated Water Planning Committee by Resolution 93-78 at their April 20th meeting to replace the Water Demand Management Committee and the Water Quality/Water Treatment Master Plan Committee. The functions of the Water Planning Committee will be to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding water demand management, water quality, water treatment, and other water related issues. Council members Alan Apt, Gina Janett and Bob McCluskey volunteered to serve on the Committee. Three Water Board members will also be selected as the water issues change. Recommendations on Cross Connection Control Program At the May Water Board meeting Keith Elliston, former Cross Connection Control Administrator, gave an informational presentation on a proposed cross connection control program for the City. The proposed regulations presume that the Utility will pursue a policy of containment which requires a user to install, at his expense, a device commensurate with the degree of hazard, and to have an operational test performed on the device by a state certified tester at the time of installation, and then once every year. The Utility would maintain the records. The draft regulations also propose to allow the private sector, meaning state certified testers, to perform a site inspection to determine the hazards at that site and recommend a particular type of device. Services that pose a health hazed, toxic substances, etc., are required to have a reduced pressure device which discharges the contaminated water to the atmosphere on the event of a back -flow incident. Water Board Minutes June 18 Page 13 thoroughly looked into what the State statutes are and that they feel comfortable that we are protected. Mr. Gallier explained that the attorneys do say there is some risk; the issue is how much risk. "As a matter of fact Assistant City Attorney John Duval said that when they bring this to Council, they will probably prepare a brief memorandum to accompany the agreement, describing what the liability and legal issues are," he added. "Perhaps the addendum can say contingent upon that risk being a reasonable one," Ms. Smith suggested. Tom Brown seconded the motion. Mark Casey asked if the Water Board could get a copy of the memorandum when it's finished. "Yes," Mr. Gallier replied. Dr. Sanders called for the question. Since there was one negative vote and one abstention, the Board was polled. Tom Sanders, MaryLou Smith, Tom Brown, Terry Podmore, Mark Casey, Paul Clopper and Dave Frick voted for the motion (Dave Stewart had left the meeting earlier.) Ray Herrmann abstained because he felt this issue is beyond the purview of the Board. Tim Dow voted no because he thinks it is foolish for the City to get into the hunting leasing business. There are too many negative things that can happen when you don't have liability insurance coverage and somebody is killed or seriously injured on the ranch, and the City is the first to be liable. MaryLou Smith asked what the City's alternative would be in terms of the devastation that would occur because of the over -population of the pronghoms. Part of the problem is that there are no natural predators, Mr. Gallier replied. "If I weren't concerned about that I would not agree to even get into the hunting situation," Ms. Smith asserted, "but the City now owns property where we have this problem, and if we don't do something about that problem, we aren't going to be good stewards of that land. That concerns me enough that I'm willing to take the risk," she added. "That's basically staffs position," Mr. Gallier responded. Tom Brown said he didn't know much about antelope, but his guess is that antelope naturally occur at the ranch, and that the real conflict is between the cattle grazers and the antelope. He contends that the cattlemen have been anxious to keep the antelope population in control because the antelope compete with the cows for grass. Ray Herrmann suggested an antelope fence. Ms. Smith asked how much we receive each year from leasing it to cattle grazing. Mr. Gallier said that the City gets about $73,000 a year from the operation. Mr. Herrmann asked if there is a state law that doesn't allow us to keep the antelope off the ranch. "I'm not sure about the answer to that," Mr. Gallier admitted, "but I'm sure from an environmental and resource standpoint, it would be pretty controversial to block out 40 square miles of land from antelope." Mark Casey wanted to clarify who suffers from the antelope hunting being interrupted or discontinued. Would it be the antelope or the cattle? "Looking at it from the DOW's perspective, the answer would be the antelope," Mr. Gallier began. "What they have told us emphatically, is that there is a potential problem with over -population now. They did an aerial util Water City of Fort Collins Services IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION M MARK E. CASEY For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board July 19, 1988 - July 1, 1993 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Board appreciate the 5 years of loyal and devoted service you gave to your community as a member of the Water Board. You provided a unique perspective to many of the problems and challenges the Water Board had to face during your tenure. Your leadership of the challenging and demanding Water Supply Committee was commendable. We appreciated your commitment to your tasks, your integrity, and your willingness to ask tough questions when some aspects of an issue weren't clear. We regret that you won't be able to complete your term on the Board. We will miss your friendly, professional and respectful demeanor as a Board member. It was always a pleasure working with you. We wish you continued professional growth and much happiness in your new home. City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utility Michael B. Smith, Director Fort Collins Water Board ' V Neil S. G 'gg, j?residgnt 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6681