Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/21/1993WATER BOARD MINUTES May 21, 1993 3:00 - 5:05 PM Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Water Board Liaison Gerry Horak Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Paul Clopper, Dave Frick, Mark Casey, MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, Dave Stewart, Terry Podmore Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Keith Elmund, Ben Alexander, Jim Hibbard, Tom Gallier, Scott Harder, Gale McGaha-Miller, Andy Pineda, Roger Buffington, Beth Voelkel, Keith Elliston Guests John Scott, NCWCD Gene Schleiger, NCWCD George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent Ray Herrmann President Neil Grigg opened the meeting and welcomed visitors. The following items were discussed: Board Members Leavine Dr. Grigg announced with regret the resignation of Water Board member Mark Casey who will be moving to Niwot at the end of the summer. The June meeting will be his last. He also confirmed that Tom Sanders' 12-year term has expired so the June meeting will be his last also. We will know by mid -June if Ray Herrmann will be re -appointed for an additional 4-year term. Minutes Tim Dow moved that the minutes of March 26, 1993 be approved as distributed. "Another fine job by Molly Nortier," he said. "These are the world's greatest minutes, not just this set but every time." Mark Casey seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved unanimously. Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 2 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Fixed Quota John Scott from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District began by asking if everyone had heard about the fixed quota that the District is proposing. Dr. Grigg said that most of the Board has at least heard something about it. Mr. Scott explained that the City gets its CBT water now in a variable amount yearly, based on what the water supplies and water demands are in the area. What the District is proposing is something that has been requested from them for several years by the rural domestics, and just recently by industrial user Public Service Company, that they get a fixed quota year in and year out. The Northern District has conducted several studies on this. "It looks like the District will have all of its rules in place by the end of this water year (September 30th)," he said. There is still debate as to whether it will be implemented this year or next year, perhaps giving it a year to "let it settle" and work out all the details. Mr. Scott went on to explain some of the benefits to those participating in the program. 1) The users can do a better job of water supply planning. 2) A major benefit for CBT users is that they don't have to purchase essentially twice as much water from the CBT project to cover their whole supplies. In the years that the District declares a 50% quota, people are expecting a full X amount of acre feet, and with a 50% quota they actually have to hold twice as many CBT units to cover that amount. "This would decrease their capital outlay," he said. 3) For the people remaining in the variable quota system, there is more water available during drought periods. 4) The District expects that the program will probably diminish the transfer of water from ag. to municipal and industrial. Next he explained some of the issues and concerns about the program: 1) The District anticipates that the Board is probably going to be reviewed closely on how they set their quota in the future because there will be two different classes of users: the variable quota people and the people on the fixed quota. There could be some bias in either group. . 2) When the CBT classes are divided, there will be two different sets of users. As a result, the District thought it was time to develop a drought policy. In the past, everyone had to share in a drought evenly. "We wanted to make sure with this new program, that Water Board Minutes May 21,1993 Page 3 people realize if they get into the fixed quota program it's not a firm fixed quota; it's not .7 regardless of what the remaining variable quota people get." If we have a severe drought, everybody is going to be cut back proportionately, "and that is spelled out in the rules." 3) The carryover program will remain in effect. It will be the same for each class of user. It may change in the future depending on whether we still maintain these high carryover balances. He stressed that the program for the two classes of users will be the same. 4) The District looked at several ways to set the surcharge on this program. Rather than trying to make money out of the program, they determined that they would just collect administrative costs. They are not sure what that's going to be, but they estimate it would be in the $200 range. "It will be a fairly minimal charge," he said. 5) The District recognizes that the rental market will probably be impacted in the future. As people "grow into" their water supplies, for those people who don't have to buy twice as many units to make up their full demand, the rental market will decrease, both with rural domestics and depending on how many municipalities get into the program. "That's about the only down side of the program we see at this point," Mr. Scott remarked. There have been questions about the program's schedule. The District had originally intended to complete their rule -making process and implement it this coming November. "There were some board members who thought that was too fast, and that we were being pushed by certain entities," he related. What the District is proposing at this point is to complete the rule -making at the end of this water year, give it a year, and then implement it in the 1995 water year. He added, "that's if the rural domestics don't really push it. We expect that they will want it as soon as it's ready to go, so we're still playing that by ear." Mr. Scott stressed that this is an optional program. It's open to any class of user whether ag., municipal, industrial, or rural domestic. The District originally limited their studies to municipal, rural domestic and industrial users, and were not going to allow ag. users to get into it. However, the studies show that the more people who participate, the more benefits there are for the remaining people, and "we didn't see any reason for limiting to just certain classes of users." There may be some ag. users that see benefit to it, those that predominately rely on CBT and a well for their surplus. Mr. Scott also pointed out that the contract is going to remain in effect for 10 years. After the user signs it, "there is no hopping back and forth between the variable program and the fixed program. We thought 10 years was a long enough time to prevent people from making short- Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 4 sighted decisions," he said. Tom Sanders asked if, on the average over the 10-year period, the people who remain on the variable program will receive the same amount of water. "They should," Mr. Scott replied. One thing you should keep in mind is that the District's long term quota has been .74, and the quota that is being looked at for the fixed people is .7. "We expect the quota setting process to remain essentially the same," he said. "Will you specify 95% of a moving average, or something more arbitrary?" Dr. Sanders asked. Mr. Scott said the District looks at each year as a new year. "Each year we look at the total supplies to the area, and the total demands of the area, and we try to fit CBT so it's a supplemental supply, and so that the full demands of the area are met." Mr. Scott continued by saying that the District adopted rules for the program at their May board meeting. The required three sets will be published in the newspapers for three consecutive weeks. The proposed rule calls for a public hearing at the July 9th board meeting, and the final decision will be made at the September loth board meeting. "We hope to have all the rules in place by the end of this water year, and we may or may not wait a year to implement the program," he concluded. He then reviewed some of the studies the District did. He referred to a graph of the deliveries from the CBT system. The historical was the baseline condition. "We looked at a 51 year period," he said. They essentially had 40 years of historical CBT operations, and they added an 11-year period which included a one -in -one hundred year drought. "We wanted to make sure this program didn't fall apart in a severe drought condition," he explained. Basically what the graph showed was that the program clips off the peaks. He pointed out the 100% quotas that were declared in the project. In this scenario, 130,000 of the 310,000 units that are in the CBT project converted to this program. So these people at this point are taking a 70% fixed quota. The remaining 180,000 units are under the old variable system. What the District wanted to look at in terms of injury to the remaining people in the system was whether there were any shortages caused by this program. Over the 40-year historical period, there were no shortages under the historical operation of the project and no shortages because of this project. "When we get into the 100 year drought, remember the hash marks are the baseline condition; we had essentially three severe drought years that incurred shortages to the CBT project." With the fixed quota program, we eliminated the shortages in the first year, and decreased the shortages in the second year from a little over 160,000 to a little under 100,000 Ac-ft. He next showed why that had occurred. He pointed out the 1977 period on the graph (1974- 1978). It was a fairly severe drought period, at least during the District's record. In this period the District declared two 100% quotas and two 80% quotas, so that's an average of 90% quotas rI Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 5 for four years. If you will recall, 130,000 of that 310,000 units are going to take only a 70% quota, that essentially saves about 100,000 Ac-ft in storage by the end of that last year. During severe drought periods when the CBT project tends to declare very high quotas, this program is going to benefit the people remaining in the variable quota system. Dave Frick asked if they tend to give a 100% quota during droughts. "Right, during the drought periods we had one 100% quota, several low 80s and a couple of 90s," Mr. Scott replied. "When we got to the tail end of the drought, we came up short, because we ran out of water," he added. He related that the District's 100-year drought was a 7-year long drought, "and we had deficits of about 450,000 Ac-ft during that 7-year period. What the studies also looked at was a fixed quota of 60, 65, 70, and 75 %. They thought initially that 75 % shouldn't be studied too much further, because the long term average was only .74 and public perception would not allow us to set a higher fixed quota than the long term average. When they looked at the 60 and 65%, they found that the spills on the west slope increased significantly. "We found that increasing the spills, without giving anybody any benefit, isn't very smart, so 70% is what we are going to concentrate on right now, and with the 70% quota what we see is that the spills are about the same," he explained. "I think it's something we can manage during real time operations much better than what is shown on a planning study like this," he assured the Board. He concluded his presentation with information on the Windy Gap deliveries. Some entities are concerned about what this program might do to the Windy Gap project, he said. Again, during the historical period, WG deliveries are made with or without this fixed quota program. He pointed out on a graph that again, in this severe drought period under the baseline condition in simulated year 49, there were zero deliveries to the Windy Gap project. It was a very severe drought, the CBT project dried up, and even with the borrowing in place, there was no water for WG. With the fixed quota program there was more than 56,000 Ac-ft saved, but during that year, the WG project could have borrowed 26,000 Ac-ft from the CBT project. In this study it was concluded that the fixed quota program is_a benefit to the Windy Gap folks also. President Grigg asked for questions and comments. Tom Brown asked if 74% has been the long term average, why not use that figure as a fixed quota. "What's the advantage of going down to 70%?" "It just makes it cleaner," Mr. Scott replied. "Is that the only justification for using 70 over 74%?" Mr. Brown continued. "We wanted to stay at least equal or lower than the long term average," Mr. Scott added; "there's no reason why we couldn't use .74." Gene Schleiger from the District thinks that, historically, over the years, normally the quotas have been set in increments of 10; 50, 60, 70%, etc. "Once you start breaking it down, you begin getting into incremental shares, and you end up with fractional amounts of water, he explained." Tom Brown also pointed out that with the proposed rules, once you're into a fixed quota, you are locked into it for 10 years. "Can you decide to go into the program anytime?" "Each year Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 6 is a new year, so you can decide to participate any year," Mr. Scott explained. "When water rights are sold, can the new owner choose to change contracts?" MaryLou Smith asked. "What we have proposed is that this supplement to the contract stays with it for the full ten-year period," Mr. Scott answered. "That's going to affect prices for different shares, isn't it?" Tom Sanders asked. "It may," Mr. Scott replied. "We could take an economic look at the long term market changes due to this program, but what we're anticipating is that even if people convert, they're not going to sell any shares." He gave an example. "Let's say rural domestics convert to a fixed quota program. They are not going to sell shares that affect the long term market value of CBT. For those entities who have converted to a fixed quota and want to sell some of it, there may be a diminished market in terms of size for them to sell to. Nevertheless, we felt that we needed to keep all of these on the long term." "After the 10 years, can you fall back to the variable system?" Dave Frick asked. "You automatically fall back to the variable system, or you can elect to renew for another 10-year period," Mr. Scott explained. Dr. Sanders wanted to know if this program affects the carryover policy. Mr. Scott said that the carryover has been building the last few years, and the District is concerned about the carryover program in general. What they propose for the fixed quota is not going to affect carryover; different classes are not going to be treated differently. "We may look at the carryover program long term to see if there are some elements that need to be changed," he said. Dr. Sanders also wanted to know if this program is going to promote conservation of water. "It seems to me that it won't enhance conservation," he said. "I'm not sure how to answer that," Mr. Scott replied. In terms of water supply planning it makes a lot more sense. For those people who depend largely on the CBT project for their water supply, it makes sense for them to participate in the fixed quota, he said. "They can do a better job of planning, and they are not going to have a lot of excess, or tend to use it because they have it or rent it," he predicted. He repeated that he didn't "have a feel for" how it may affect conservation. Dr. Grigg asked if the District has made an evaluation of how the program may affect the rental market. "Just in a general way," Mr. Scott responded. From a policy perspective, the District feels that their first duty is to the CBT allottees, and what's good for all the CBT users is "what we should do." That concluded Mr. Scott's presentation. President Grigg thanked him for informing the Board about the proposed program. Undate: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Gene Schlieger distributed the latest snow/precipitation updates. The total has increased another 3% in the last four days, he said, running from 132% of normal in the North and South Platte drainages, to 185% on the Gunnison. As of yesterday, on stream flows, project deliveries, and storage in the system, two numbers are significant under the west slope stream flows: Willow Creek is running 638 compared to 184 a year ago and the Fraser River is 930 compared to 168. "We have been running both pumps for a couple of weeks now on Willow Creek, and have been able to maintain it at an even keel until the last two days, and we just can't keep up with it. It Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 7 looks like we're going to have to start controlled releases or maybe a spill at somewhere around 400-500 cfs," he reported. Under reservoir storage, he reported that Granby is currently at 42 %. The District is predicting that Granby will be full or within 25,000 Ac-ft of being full. They are having to watch the current Windy Gap pumping. "We certainly don't want to be running the WG pumps and end up in a spill situation." Mr. Schlieger announced the dates for the District's summer tours. Four days have been set: the two days for the east slope are June 17th and July 13th, and the west slope dates are June 21st and September 1st. If anyone wants to go on any of the tours, he advised that they contact the District early because they fill up quickly. Dr. Grigg asked if the District was expecting any flooding in the District facilities. "No, not yet," Mr. Schlieger replied. "Of course Denver is pulling a significant amount of the flow of the Fraser, but most of it is downstream of our Windy Gap site," he said. Review of Amendment to Service Agreement with West Fort Collins Water District Gale McGaha-Miller, Environmental Regulations Coordinator, explained that the purpose of the Addendum to the Agreement with West Fort Collins is to comply with the EPA rules for copper and lead in drinking water. She explained that "West Fort Collins Water District is not specifically required to do their own sampling as long as we enter into a consolidation agreement which clearly delineates which responsibilities we're going to take on behalf of the District and which responsibilities they're going to do for themselves." Primarily, this agreement clarifies that the City will do any necessary monitoring, but if any problems are found with lead service lines, the District will be responsible for replacing them. Neil Grigg asked about the number of customers and the area served by West Fort Collins Water District. Ms. McGaha-Miller estimates that the.District serves approximately 3,000 people, primarily in LaPorte and some outlying subdivisions. MaryLou Smith questioned why the West Fort Collins Water District was the only entity being addressed by the City with regard to a consolidation agreement. Ms. McGaha-Miller explained that this particular district is the only true "consecutive system" served by the City. The West Fort Collins Water District is the only one which does not do any of their own treatment, and they don't blend water provided by the City with any other sources. Therefore, this is the only entity with which a consolidation agreement is necessary or appropriate. Tom Sanders asked if there are still a lot of old pipes with lead solder still in the system. Ms. McGaha-Miller explained that, according to Doug Bigge from the District, lead solder is not a large problem. "It is possible that there are some lead service lines and old plumbing" within the District, but she doesn't believe there are any lead service lines within the City. "We've Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 8 been systematically replacing those for quite some time." Ms. McGaha-Miller said that sampling for lead takes place at the household tap. Lead levels in source and finished water are also monitored regularly. At this time no significant lead levels are being detected in any of the samples. If lead is detected at the tap, EPA rules require the water provider to employ corrosion control methods. Ben Alexander explained that the City has been using sodium bicarbonate and calcium hydroxide to adjust the alkalinity and pH for corrosion control since 1984, and has been involved in monitoring since the late 1970s. The Colorado Department of Health considers Fort Collins' corrosion control methods optimal, and Mr. Alexander does not anticipate needing further improvements in the near future. In water systems where corrosion control is being employed and lead is still showing up at the tap, Ms. McGaha-Miller explained, then replacement of lead service lines might be necessary. In this consolidation agreement, however, it is specified that the District would be responsible for replacing those lines within its service area should the need arise. Tim Dow was concerned with the financial impacts of this agreement, but Ms. McGaha-Miller assured the Board that no additional monitoring will be needed. The necessary monitoring has been anticipated and budgeted for in the past. Essentially, this consolidation agreement "just wraps the District into our monitoring program." Although there seem to be some problems in certain areas of the country, the City of Fort Collins has no problems with lead levels at this time. Most of the major lead problems apparently are in the eastern United States where there are some extraordinarily old homes, and corrosion control measures are just beginning to be implemented. Dave Frick moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the consolidation agreement to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Tom Sanders. Ms. McGaha-Miller interjected that the agreement was written using the Colorado Department of Health's format, and that the Department had preliminarily approved the agreement. President Grigg called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Addendum to the Agreement with West Fort Collins Water District. Cross Connection Control Program Dr. Grigg reminded the. Board that they had discussed this item at the March meeting, and voted to reconsider it at a later meeting because there were concerns about some items in the draft Cross Connection Control Manual. Water Board Minutes May 21, 1"3 Page 9 Jim Hibbard, Distribution and Collection Manager, said that because of some issues brought up by the Water Board at the March meeting, as well as questions and comments from other sources, staff decided to look further into the program. "Perhaps staff had made assumptions about some policy issues that we probably shouldn't have," he acknowledged. Staff examined some of those assumptions, made revisions, and are now asking for the Board's review and direction, particularly on some of the policy questions. These are involved in two major areas: (1) For what services do we want to have cross connection control devices? (2) To what extent does the Utility want to be involved? In other words, does the Utility wish to just monitor the program and let the private sector develop it. Staff provided information for the Board with specific questions for discussion. Mr. Hibbard emphasized that staff is not looking for explicit direction today on some of the issues, because some of them will require more research and study depending on the general direction the board recommends. What is a Cross Connection? Keith Elliston, Cross Connection Control Administrator, began his presentation with a short clip from a videotape on cross connections, prepared by the University of Southern California. After the tape, which described basically what cross connections are and how they occur, Mr. Elliston reiterated that a cross connection is an unprotected physical link between the public water supply system and that which is operated by the consumer. The potential for contamination exists any time there is a higher pressure in the consumer's system than what there is in the public system. Regulatory Requirements Article 14 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations under the Colorado Health Dept., requires that a public water system have no unprotected cross connections, and it lists the following steps to protect from that: 1. Identify hazardous service connections; 2. Require users of a health hazard service connection to install and maintain an appropriate backflow prevention device; 3. Inspect the device installation; 4. Ensure devices are tested annually; 5. Maintain maintenance records of the devices. Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code authorizes and directs the City Manager to establish a program to control and eliminate cross connection hazards. Containment versus Isolation Mr. Elliston said the two options available to the water supplier to prevent contamination of the public system are containment and isolation. Containment is where a single device is installed Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 10 on the service line to prevent contaminated substances from re-entering the public system. The containment device is installed on the service line before the water reaches the facility. With isolation the device is installed at the point of use. The containment method requires a single device, whereas the isolation option involves a multiple number of devices at the point of use. Isolation protects the customer within the building to the last free -flowing outlet, whereas containment only protects the public system. Programs in Other Cities Staff checked with other front range cities which have had a cross connection control program in effect for five years a more. There was a table in the packet that summarized the programs for four cities; they varied quite a lot. Longmont appears to have the most extensive program. They provide the devices, they maintain control, they test the devices, and the city pays installation costs. Arvada and Denver require their customers to install devices on the service line. They also contract with a private tester, and they maintain records. Their function is basically administrative. Proposed Regulations Mr. Elliston then discussed the proposed rules and regulations for Fort Collins. The regulations will 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 will 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. The three devices shown on the video were vacuum breakers, a double check valve, and a reduced pressure device. A vacuum breaker is certainly adequate for sprinkler systems or perhaps process tanks. Services that pose a health hazard, toxic substances, etc., are required to have a reduced pressure device which discharges the contaminated water to the atmosphere in the event of a back -flow incident. Impacts on Customers Basically the impact on the customer will be the cost of purchasing a device, and also to have a test performed on the device at the time of installation, and then annually. "Customer Information Services provided us with data which showed that 98% of the Utility's commercial customers in 1992 were served by a 3" or smaller service line," Mr. Elliston related. A chart on p. 5 of the packet information shows costs of the different devices. "As you can see, most of our customers would not incur a large expense by purchasing any particular device," he pointed out. Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 11 Policy Issues Mr. Elliston stated that the policy issues that staff is asking the Board to consider will depend on how the program is structured "to meet your needs and those of the community." Staff has identified 10 policy issues for the Board's review. Listed along with those are the advantages and disadvantages of each. "These issues will probably take a considerable amount of time and discussion to resolve, so we don't expect any definitive answers today," he said. Mr. Elliston provided a handout that grouped the policy issues into basically two categories: (1) On which services will cross connection devices be required? and (2) To what level will the Utility be involved? In order to implement the program, the City Attorney's office has prepared two ordinances: The first one modifies section 26-189 of the municipal code which basically requires that any program promulgated by the City Manager needs to be adopted by City Council, and also adds enabling language to that section that makes a violation of the rules and regulations a misdemeanor. The second ordinance is to have Council actually adopt the proposed rules and regulations once they have been finalized. Mr. Elliston said that staff is proposing to initiate a public education campaign so that the consumer will be made aware of the concepts and theories of backflow, the need to prevent it, and the impact of the program on them. That should be implemented within the next few months, depending on the decisions of the Board. "We will be back to the Board for additional input," he concluded. Tom Sanders was surprised that a city the size of Fort Collins doesn't have regulations on cross connections, and hasn't been "vigorously enforcing it." Section 26 of the municipal code does require the City Manager to develop and implement a cross connection control program, Mr. Elliston replied. "However, we have not been enforcing that. Other than that one short section in the code, we don't have a program to identify cross connections or the potential hazards associated with them, nor do we have enforcement powers to require a user to install a particular device, or discontinue the cross connection," he explained. "You mean the building inspectors don't have this power?" Dr. Sanders asserted. Dave Stewart said that when the Engineering Committee looked at this, sprinkler systems were not inspected, and until this goes into effect, they don't have to be tested. "They do have to install back -flow prevention devices," MaryLou Smith interjected. "It depends on how old the system is," Mr. Stewart responded. "So they do have to be installed, but not tested," Ms. Smith asked. Mr. Elliston confirmed that requiring a back -flow prevention device is in the uniform plumbing code. "One of the problems we run into," Mr. Elliston continued, "is the home handyman. If he decides to install a home sprinkler system, he may not be familiar with the code or of the requirements of installing a back -flow prevention device. Now, when the meter shop employees Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 12 inspect to set a meter, if they see a sprinkler system that does not meet current building codes, they give me a note on it." Ms. Smith reiterated, "so a property -owner may not have taken out a building permit to install the sprinkler system, so we have no way of knowing if they meet the plumbing code requirement." "That's correct," Mr. Elliston replied, "but I might add that I have talked with the Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, and the reputable firms do install the devices; they install them correctly, and use the appropriate type of device. The problems we have are the fly by night operations or the do-it-yourselfers." "Is there a policy or plan in place where you inspect, for example, the new hospital construction as far as cross connections?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Fortunately for us, the hospital is aware of that, and they do have containment devices installed," Mr. Elliston answered, "but currently we aren't required to test those devices." Jim Hibbard pointed out that another problem we face is some warehouses and industrial parks. "They build a row of buildings and begin leasing them out and you may have an office, another office and then a chemical firm, etc. When the building is built, and permits are issued and inspections are done, it's an empty building, then later on you may have these sorts of problems. We do have devices being installed, but we are not necessarily catching them. on every structure that is required to have them, and there hasn't been any annual testing as required by state law." he related. "We are hoping this proposed program will bring us up to speed." Tom Brown wondered about the logic of checking the devices every year for something like a sprinkler system. "I can understand it for a hospital or some type of factory," he added. The theory behind that is if you have a device, you may become complacent about it's safety, Mr. Elliston began. "Unfortunately, we do have crustaceans in water lines that occasionally break off. They could foul the check seats, and if a back -flow were to occur, you may have a device that's not functioning correctly," he explained. Mr. Hibbard added that one of the problems is we don't have discretion in that because it is written into the state code that you test once a year. "If we were completely designing our own program, we might have some sort of stipulation for an annual or six-month inspection where there is a higher hazard, and every two years for low risk, for example." As currently written, we don't have that option. Tom Brown asked about the cities who don't do their own inspections, but have it done privately: how do they monitor that? As stated in Article 14 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the utility or water supplier is required to maintain a record, Mr. Elliston explained. "Basically you use a tickler file to record when a device is tested. Approximately 11 months after that you send a notice to that device owner that it needs to be re -tested." The tester returns a copy of the test report to the utility. Mark Casey asked if this applies just to sprinkler systems and structures where there is a hazard, or all homes and buildings. Mr. Elliston referred to attachment 2 in the packets, where staff Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 13 identified hazardous service connections. Underground sprinkler systems are classified as a hazardous service connection because pesticides, herbicides and toxic chemicals applied on lawns and other vegetation could be sucked into the system. Rich Shannon added that most homes would be exempt unless they had a sprinkler system. "If you look at the table in the packet, the cost of a 3/4 or 1" vacuum breaker, whether it's atmospheric or pressure, it not prohibitive," Mr. Elliston pointed out. MaryLou Smith asked when the state law, that we are out of compliance with, went into effect. Colorado has had a cross connection control statute prior to 1962, Mr. Elliston replied. He thinks that Colorado petitioned the EPA for control of the public water supply systems, known as primacy. Out of that came the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations that included most of Article 14. "How recent is the annual inspection requirement?" Ms. Smith asked. "That has been required since at least 1962," he said. "How did we get by without complying with it?" Ms. Smith continued. "In 1989 in response to a questionnaire mailed to the Utility by the Health Dept., they requested information concerning the status of our cross connection control program, Mr. Elliston said. Mr. Hibbard also pointed out that the State has had some of these items on the books for a long time, but never has devoted any resources to ensuring that cities were complying. While the State was ignoring the law, most cities and water utilities were doing the same. In more recent years our Utility felt the liability issues were too great for us, whether or not the state wanted to actively enforce this program, Mr. Hibbard concluded. Dave Stewart wanted to know the cost impact of the program. "That will probably depend on the decisions the board makes regarding the policy issues," Mr. Elliston replied. "If we go with containment, what's the cost?" Mr. Stewart asked. Tom Brown said that again it would depend on whether the City does it or if it's the owner's responsibility. "Somebody's got to pay for it," MaryLou Smith remarked. Mr. Hibbard said they don't have a dollar amount right now. "And that goes back to our level of involvement," Mr. Elliston added; "whether we'll do the testing, purchase the devices and sell them back to the customer, and whether we'll do maintenance on them." There are still a lot of questions that need to be discussed, he stressed. "Do we even know who's got sprinkler systems?" Tom Brown asked. "We have reasonably good records for the most recent history," Mr. Hibbard replied. Probably the best indication we'll have is when we visit a home to install a meter over the next 15 years. Ms. Smith added that at least since 1975 you had to have a building permit if you were legitimately installing a sprinkler system. "It sounds like we really need to do this," Ms. Smith began, "but I think we are going to be impacting a lot of people, and we're talking about at least $20-30 per dwelling per year." Dave Stewart talked to the person who installed his sprinkler system, and "he said he planned to charge about $10 to do the inspection, and he would do it when he blows out the system for the winter." Mr. Elliston stated that Front Range Community College offers a state certified back - flow prevention device testers' class. Most of the sprinkler contractors are participating in that course to get that certification as a service to their customers. "I think for PR purposes if this Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 14 can be promoted as one more step in the winterization procedure, that will help us sell it," Ms. Smith suggested. Dr. Sanders said he was assured by staff several years ago, when the City had a cross connection episode at City Park Lake, that there were no more problems because we had a cross connection program. "Now I'm appalled that we don't," he asserted. The public health movement on cross connections started a long time ago, he added. "I think that's true with sprinkler systems," Dave Stewart stated, but when his firm put in their laboratory, the building inspectors were there to check it out thoroughly. "In the hazardous situations the building department is aware and responsive," he stressed. Dr. Sanders was also concerned about the new definition of cross connections. It appears that as long as you have a check valve it's okay. "I thought the procedure was that we don't have cross connections except in very extreme situations; now apparently things are changing." "An air gap is positive protection against cross connection; a back -flow or back syphon is not the only method that is acceptable now," Jim Hibbard responded. Tom Sanders continued by saying that "any time you have a fire, and you put one of those high pressure pumps on, you're going to have vacuums in the line. Do we have any data where the water has been checked right after a fire to see if there is evidence of contaminated water?" he asked. "If we don't, I think we should, because fighting fires is a major cause," he contends. He pointed out that the largest outbreak of hepatitis in this country was at Holy Cross as the result of a cross connection with a sprinkler system. He is adamant that the City needs to address cross connection controls vigorously. "It's more important than installing meters," he quipped. Keith Elmund, Environmental Quality Manager, wanted to reiterate the importance of the determination as to whether we go with isolation or containment options. "In our relationship with CSU and all of its laboratories, we must determine the connection with our legal liabilities," he said. CSU has started a cross connection control program, and with their limited resources have made some improvements in applications. We need to explore the concept of the legal relationship of containment versus isolation, he stressed. "We need to discuss that in detail when we get to that question," Dr. Grigg agreed. "I need to know which is best with regard to the problems with the University." Tim Dow asked "if it was all one option or could you have a mixed policy, where on residential you could do containment, and on the commercial, or CSU, do isolation?" Jim Hibbard replied that "you could have them mixed. In residential situations where the primary concern is sprinkler systems, you are talking isolation, because you are not protecting the entire dwelling unit, just the sprinkler system." On the other hand, in places like Hewlett Packard, where there are thousands of square feet of buildings and networks, it would be very hard to administer an Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 15 isolation program because of the complexity. They might want to have their own cross connection control program to protect their own employees, he pointed out, but we can't rely on that to protect the rest of our water system in the southeast quadrant of town, he explained. "How does that affect us under the Safe Drinking Water Act?" Mr. Stewart wanted to know. "Aren't we responsible for what comes out of the faucet?" "My personal interpretation of the political trends would be that the EPA is not likely to establish more at -the -tap maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) at this time," Gale McGaha-Miller responded. MaryLou Smith asked Ms. McGaha-Miller for a clarification. "At the moment the only at -the -tap maximum contaminant levels are for coliform, lead and copper," she said. President Grigg suggested that the Board discuss the policy issues and then "we can decide where we are going with this." Keith Elliston said that in response to the questionnaire mailed by the Health Dept., the Utility had a legal firm in Boulder review the State regulations. It was their opinion that it was not necessary for the Utility to enter into a consumer's presence to check for cross connections, but merely require protective devices on the service line or at the tap to the house, not the faucet. "So, from the meter on, it's the consumer's water," Dave Stewart clarified. "From the stop box, essentially," Mr. Hibbard replied. "With new construction, would it make sense to look at having this tied into a containment device for single family home, so you get a greater level of protection, or is the only concern the landscape sprinkler system?" Mark Casey asked. "One of the issues that we'll try to wrestle with is, do you put a device on every service, or do you do a survey and protect the hazardous ones that you find?" Mr. Hibbard replied. The City of Longmont is putting a device on every service; a lot of other cities aren't. "If you put a device on every service it could be done in conjunction with the leak detection program, or some other widespread program," Mr. Casey suggested. "If you were to put such a device on every service, if they decided to put in a sprinkler system, wouldn't they need an additional back -flow device to protect their own in- house water from their sprinkler system," MaryLou Smith pointed out. "Yes," Mr. Hibbard replied. "But a device installed at every service would protect the City," Ms. Smith added. Dr. Sanders asked if the meters flow both ways. "Yes," Mr. Hibbard replied. Dr. Sanders suggested that the Utility install a check valve at the time a meter is installed, and make it a complete system. "One of the basic policy issues we must resolve is, on which services do we put devices?" Mr. Hibbard reiterated. "Are we talking hazardous only, everyone, old fire systems that may have to be retrofitted?" The second basic question is, how do we pay for it? The options run all the way from a full blown City program; "we'll do it and crank it into your rates," to, "we'll be the keepers of the paper work and let the private state certified testers and installers do the rest." "It's up to the Board as to how we proceed," he said. Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 16 Scott Harder, Utility Analyst, said if we chose to install a check valve along with a meter, we might have to re -visit the source of funding, because Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) pay for meters. Funding for check valves would more likely be derived from rates. President Grigg said the Board would not be able to give answers on all of the issues in the short time it has left in the meeting. The first issue is, on which services will cross connection devices be required; on hazardous service connections only, on every house, and do we go with a policy of containment or isolation? "There are several complex questions within these sub- divisions, and I don't feel as if I know enough to answer these," he said. "Does anyone have a suggestion for how we begin?" "What's our existing policy?" Dave Frick asked. Currently, what we do is to try to get a device on every sprinkler system, and on every commercial building that essentially meets the criteria of attachment to health hazed service connections. "We don't install a device on every tap," Mr. Hibbard explained. "Who enforces that? Is it Building Inspection for sprinkler systems?" Dr. Grigg asked. "Right," Mr. Hibbard replied. "How about industrial applications, who is responsible for that?" Dr. Grigg continued. "We do that internal to the Distribution and Collection Division," Mr. Hibbard said. "If we see a permit come through for a building that we know has potential to meet this hazardous service provision, we follow up and install a device if it's needed, but there is no inspection. "Your second set of questions under 'to what level will the Utility be involved?' it seems there's an expansion to that question which is, 'to what level should the program be developed?'" Dr. Grigg pointed out. "I can see elements to the installation requirements which we have now, in a couple of cases." Within the next phase, the monitoring phase, would be inspection and testing, and the third phase is like an enforcement phase. That seems to introduce additional duties into Mr. Hibbard's section. "It would definitely be a heavy duty program if we went the whole way with all of that," Dr. Grigg observed. "Is there some way we could get into it, like with installation, and have some kind of self monitoring or self -reporting system, which would make the rest of it not too expensive?" he wondered. In other words, is there an optimum program design, including installation, monitoring and enforcement, that would be the most logical for the whole thing and meets the State law? "What our feeling was when we began this," Mr. Hibbard recalled, "was to design the system that gave us the ability to meet state law, to keep the records and be the administrator of the program, but to stay out, as much as possible, of the actual doing of the program, so we wouldn't have to add staff, purchase additional trucks, etc." There are already state certified testers who are equipped to do some of the required tasks. "That was an assumption on our part that perhaps wasn't correct," he acknowledged. "One of the concerns that we had was if we don't have the burden, someone else does." Mike Smith related. "It's the customer who feels the impact. In some cities it's somewhat invisible. The customer may in fact pay for it in their utility rates, but they don't have to take care of it themselves." Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 17 Dr. Grigg said that explanation helps him separate two issues that the Board could deal with. First, what is the program regardless of who does it or pays for it? "We need to look at the pros and cons of isolation vs. containment, and decide what best fits our needs." Once we have a minimally adequate program selected, we may already have identified with a containment or isolation answer. Then we can look at who does it, who pays for it, and determine what's most acceptable to the Utility and to the customers. Tom Sanders moved that the City move towards having a containment program for every system, and along with the metering program begin installing some kind of vacuum check valve for every new installation as a first step. This would not be part of the motion, but the second step would require that every washer connection or every direct connection to the water line should have some kind of a vacuum break valve. Tom Brown thought it was too early to move on this. Dave Stewart remarked that the 100% containment in the motion makes him nervous. If we had a mixed use based on the practicality of the situation and the hazard associated with it, I'd go along with the motion, he said. MaryLou Smith said this issue is very important, and she didn't think it was something that could be taken care of efficiently in this large a group. She suggested that it be referred to the Engineering Committee, and have them hone it down to a point where the entire Board could make some decisions. President Grigg liked that suggestion. He remarked that we are about to run out of time for today's discussion. Would the Engineering Committee be willing to work on it? Dave Stewart, chair of the Engineering Committee, agreed to that. Dr. Grigg asked the Committee to begin with the major policy questions, and come back with recommendations to the full Board about how we structure both the program and the management arrangements. Mr. Stewart said that in order for Tom Sanders to be involved in this before he goes off the Board, he would suggest that the Committee meet as quickly as possible. They will have something prepared for the June meeting. Before they went on to the next topic, Tom Brown asked about what percent of the residents we serve have sprinkler systems. Dennis Bode said it is probably under 25-30%. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that the April water use was only 74% of the average projected use, due to a wetter than average April. Water & Wastewater.Utility Annual Report Board members received a copy of the 1992 W&WW Utility Annual Report in their packets. Neil Grigg was really impressed by how nice it looked and the excellent information. The Board agreed that it was very well done. Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 18 Update on Water Board Work Plan Each Board member received a copy of the 1993 Water Board Work Plan to review. Mike Smith went through the plan to update the Board on each item: 1. Water Suooly A. There was nothing to report on the purchase of water rights. B. Under Halligan Reservoir he reported that the contract is on hold until we get the enterprise issue resolved with the Utilities. Rich Shannon said the enterprise item goes to the Council work session next week, and potentially June 15th for an ordinance if they choose to formally make these enterprises. C. Staff is proceeding with the Southside Ditches water rights transfer. "We are getting close to a point where we can give an update," he said. It will be a few weeks until the engineering report is completed. D. Nothing much is happening on the Poudre Project. E. Also nothing is happening with the Regional Water Supply Study. F. The judge has not yet issued a ruling on Thomton's Northern Project. 2. Water Conservation and Public Education A. The Council work plan includes some items on implementing demand management measures. B. The volunteer metering program is basically on track. C. Wendy Williams and Jim Clark provided an update on public education projects a few weeks ago. D. The zero interest loan program was just modified last month. There is nothing for the Committee to do on that at this time. 3. i Peislative and Finance A. The Colorado legislature recently ended its session, so there are no legislative items to monitor until next year. B. The Utility budget is coming up. There will be more discussion about that under the next agenda item. • C� Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 19 4. Engineering A. There is nothing to monitor on the Regional Water Supply study. B. There is nothing much on construction projects at this time for the Engineering Committee to review. C. The Water Treatment Master Plan is in progress, and there will be a draft policy to review later this year. Liaison Issues A. Cooperation and interaction with related City boards is an ongoing process. B. The Water Board hosted a joint meeting in March with other regional water boards. C. Staff is working with regional entities on regional water treatment, and "we may have a report on that within the next few months." 6. Water Oualitv The City Council/Water Board Water Quality Policy Committee has been meeting. There will be another meeting within the next couple of weeks to finalize a draft policy. There has been serious thought on the Council side to giving that committee broader responsibility for both water and wastewater items, and granting it standing committee status. 7. Routine Items As these items come up, staff will be bringing them to the Water Board. 8. Poudre River National Water Heritage Area There is nothing much happening on this._ On the national level the state congressional delegation has been inundated with other items that have taken priority over this designation. Dr. Grigg suggested that with two new Water Board members and a new Council liaison, it might be a good idea to have a work session sometime soon where staff could brief the Board in detail on some of the major issues, and perhaps invite interested Council members, since there are a number of recently elected new ones. He was thinking about doing this sometime in the fall. The Water Board Work Plan might form some of the organizing core if we decide to do it, he said. We can talk about this at our next meeting. Joe Wright Special Use Permit Update Mike Smith distributed a public bulletin from the Forest Service which provided a good Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 20 summary of the process the Utility has been and will be going through with the FS. "There is very little new information to report," he said. Over the last few months staff has attended numerous meetings and provided information, while the Forest Service has been completing their biological assessment. When they complete that, it will be turned over to the Fish and Wildlife Service. After the F&WS reviews it, they will issue an opinion. During that process there will be some discussions among the F&WS and the various entities. Once they officially announce their opinion, it goes back to the Forest Service for their decision. 1994 Budget Input Mr. Smith referred to the memo the Board received from the Mayor regarding the preparation of the 1994 budget and Boards' and Commissions' input. He distributed another memo from him about the potential response to the Mayor. "You may have noticed in the memo from the Mayor that she was asking for response by May 25th which gives us little time to respond." The City budget process directs that recommended budgets be forwarded to the City Manager by the middle of next month. Obviously it is difficult for the Boards to review the budgets in that limited time frame. On the reverse side of Mr. Smith's letter, he has drafted a letter to the Mayor from Neil Grigg. "You may offer any suggestions you like on this correspondence," Mr. Smith said to the Board. President Grigg said the memo looked good to him. "So the City Council has adopted a work plan similar to ours," MaryLou Smith began, "and in their work plan, they will be adopting items 1 and 2?" "Items 1 and 2 will be somewhere in their work plan," Mr. Smith responded. These items are: 1. Examine ways to reducelforestall increases in utility rates. 2. Review water conservation programs. Look at low flow toilets, showers and faucets for new development. Consider top soil preparation requirements for new construction. Adopt sprinkler irrigations system standards and irrigation standards. Ms. Smith said that No. 2 was a little confusing to her, "because Council told us, as a Water Board, to look at these issues. We adopted a plan telling them what we are doing about it. We are working out our plan, so what's this all about?" she wanted to know. "It's irritating and disorganized as far as I'm concerned," she asserted. Perhaps the new Council members aren't aware of what former Council members did; "if that's the case, I excuse them," she added. Rich Shannon explained that the Council participated in a 2-3 day retreat. "They did a lot of brain -storming, put a lot of phrases on paper, and we are still in the process of organizing those phrases: in other words, what goes with what and what is really meant by these phrases," he said. "I think that number 2 means that we have some new Council members, and they too are interested in conservation, and they want to make sure we're doing good things." Staff will tell Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 21 them what the process is, what we are doing, and inform them that a lot of things have already been accomplished. President Grigg asked if the Board approved of his signing the draft memo. Terry Podmore wondered about the short time frame. "Mayor Azari is trying to be an inclusive mayor," Mr. Shannon related, "and she wanted to pose the question to all the boards and commissions before the budget process started, and that question was, 'do you have anything special that everyone ought to be thinking about?'" She also expected a letter at the end of the process saying, "we have taken a close look at the budget, and we as the Water Board think this." There were no objections from the Board about Dr. Grigg signing the letter. "An ad hoc Water Board Cost of Service Committee has been formed," Mike Smith announced, "and we plan on presenting some budget information at the next couple of meetings." Committee Reports Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith reported that her Committee decided that they will not meet again until September because staff is busy working on much of what the Committee has recommended. "I would like to mention that Jim Clark has called together individuals from the landscape industry and they are working hard on the item from the staff memo about adopting sprinkler and irrigation system standards," she said. Engineering Dave Stewart reported that his Committee looked at the cross connection program, and will have a report at the next meeting. Council/Water Board Water Quality Committee Mike Smith said there will be a report at the June board meeting. Regional Wastewater Service Issues 112d= Mike Smith said he met recently with the County planning director and the City planning director about land use issues with regard to the regional wastewater plant. They have Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 22 considerable interest and concerns about the plant; not concerns about doing it, but concerns about time and impacts. There will be further meetings within the next couple of months. "After examining our capital budget process further, we have modified some of our projections, and it looks like the need for the expansion in 1999, from our point of view is too soon: the years 2001, 2002 or 2003 may be more realistic," he concluded. Other Business New Technology in the Meter Reading Industry MaryLou Smith presented two items she has been wanting to discuss for quite some time. "I have the impression that the new technology for metering has been moving rather rapidly," especially with regard to remote readers, and she was a little concerned about whether the Utility is going to be able to keep up with the latest innovations in the industry. "Are our meters going to be outdated quickly?" Mr. Hibbard acknowledged that the technology in automatic meter reading is moving at a rapid rate. "It's so fast though that we don't want to commit to any of that technology quite yet," he said. "While we are putting meters in houses, we can take advantage of that technology when it is feasible. Also it's a continual process of taking out the old meters and putting in new ones. Any move that we might make in the future to an automatic meter reading process would be a phased in approach. He concluded that staff is aware of the new technology, and is keeping an eye on it, and when it becomes more economically feasible, both for electric and water automatic reading, we'll start implementing it. "Are you leading me to believe that we can retrofit what we currently have more easily because we are putting meters inside the houses?" "Generally speaking, yes," Mr. Hibbard replied. "That sounds like a reasonable approach," she said. Accuracy of Drought Study Projections Ms. Smith's second question related to drought study demographics. When the Utility did the drought study a few years ago, and looked at the amount of the water supply we were going to need, we used statistics that were available to us.from the Planning Dept., and "I'm curious to see if our predictions have been accurate in actuality because it's been 5-7 years since that study was done," she said. "I think it's been fairly close," Dennis Bode responded. Back at that time the City had some higher projections than what we've actually seen. Other than that, what we projected in terms of water being turned in, etc. is close. "Would it be too much trouble to put something together to show us figures?" Mr. Bode asked her to clarify what kind of information she would like. "I'm interested in the per capita per day usage, in the population growth, and also whether the amount of water turned in was adequate," she said. Mr. Bode said staff would try to prepare something for the next meeting. Children's Water Festival on May 25th Information about the Children's Water Festival was included in the Water Board packets. Staff encouraged Water Board members to attend. 0 • Water Board Minutes May 21, 1993 Page 23 Adjourn Since there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.