Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/15/1992F,I WATER BOARD MINUTES May 15, 1992 3:00 P.M. - 4:40 P.M Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Council/Water Board Liaison Loren Maxey - 482-1202 Staff Support Person Mike Smith - 221-6681 Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, MaryLou Smith, Mark Casey, Paul Clopper, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Dave Frick, Dave Stewart Siff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Andy Pineda, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier Guests George Reed, Citizen Observer David Frydendall, Citizen Observer Members Absent Tim Dow, Terry Podmore, (excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Paul Clopper moved, and Mark Casey seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously as distributed. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Update The representative from the District was absent, so there was no report. Update: U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permits Mike Smith reminded the Board that the City has a special use permit with the U.S. Forest Service on Joe Wright Reservoir, issued in 1979. When issued the permit was to expire ten years later in 1989. The last couple of years the Utility has been waiting to renew the permit. The Forest Service only recently sent a draft permit that has a couple of provisions in it which staff found objectionable, he said. The City has been working with the Forest Service to try to remove those. Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 2 Basically those items relate to mandatory releases from Joe Wright to maintain certain flows in the creek below. Mr. Smith guesses that the Forest Service thought if they couldn't get minimum flows in the water courts on the reserved rights issue, they would try to accomplish it some other way. "We found out that we are not the only ones with this problem," he said. There are a number of area communities that have special use permits which are in the renewal process, and the Forest Service has basically asked for minimum releases throughout the year from their reservoirs as well. Mr. Smith continued by saying that those other communities have abandoned trying to work with the Forest Service administration, and among other things, have begun talking with their congressional and legislative staffs. Apparently the problem isn't at the National level, but with the local U.S. Forest Service office. Water Utility staff have evaluated the impact of those releases. Recently the Utility received an additional communication from the Forest Service, which means staff will be required to do further analyses. "We continue to try to work things out," Mr. Smith concluded. In the preliminary analysis, does it look like something we could compromise on without getting hurt, or could it be damaging to us? Neil Grigg asked. "The first time we ran the numbers, it looked like we could lose 800 Ac-ft from storage, but since the last Forest Service letter, we may have to run those numbers again," Mr. Smith replied. It will probably go down somewhat. Mr. Bode estimated that it will probably be less than 400 Ac-ft of firm yield losses based on the period we looked at. Dave Frick asked "if we could pick it up somewhere downstream?" Dennis Bode replied that it is very difficult to do that. "The possibility exists sometime in he future if we had a larger diversion, but it's hard to say we can do that in the future," Mike Smith added. Marylou Smith asked what is the total number of Ac-ft we have. "We use close to 30,000 Ac- ft." Mr. Bode answered. Neil Grigg related that he moderated a debate that Leadership Fort Collins presented recently on the question: Can we resolve conflict between the environment and development within the water rights scenario? Both sides agreed that we must have the in -stream flows, but we need to pay for them, not just take them. "What this special use permit is trying to do is take them, or coerce us into it," he said. "I think we ought to have a policy of going as far as we can being a good neighbor, but when it comes to actual financial lawsuits we need to be sure we get compensated. To me that's really the issue," he stressed. Paul Clopper asked what the stated reason is for the flows. Maintenance of aquatic life, Mr. Smith replied. The requirement was 5 cfs in the summer and 2 cfs in the winter. In the winter Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 3 there is nothing much flowing, and the gates were not designed to make releases in the winter, he explained. Neil Grigg commented that he thinks this is going to be a continuing struggle. Mike Smith remarked that if there were a way that we could release it then pick it up without being injured, it could be a different story. We want to remain good neighbors and maintain aquatic resources, Dr. Grigg stated. Paul Clopper pointed out that in the Reserved Rights Case, Judge Behrman specifically excluded the consideration of aquatic habitat. It was based solely on channel maintenance purposes, so the channels would maintain their conveyance capacity. Mark Casey asked under what authority the Forest Service is asking for the releases. The reserved right would be on the original "set aside" which is basically to protect the forest; the channel being part of the forest, so they can ask for the reserved right to protect the channel, Ray Herrmann began. Apparently fish and wildlife were specifically precluded in the New Mexico case which was the original case for the Forest Service, he added. Mike Smith said the more specific answer to Mr. Casey's question is under the Forest Service regulations they are required to develop management plans for the forest. The management plan contains statements about maintaining aquatic life. "Has it been challenged and not stood up in court before?" Mark Casey asked. This has never been challenged, Mr. Smith responded. It hasn't even come up previously. Paul Clopper commented that it sounds like a special use permit is a separate action, or a different vehicle to introduce the aquatic habitat back into the picture. Neil Grigg thinks it would be good to have briefings on this subject from time to time. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that April water use was 2,082 Ac-ft, which is about 98% of average, bringing the year to date deliveries up to 91 % of average. As far as this half of the month has gone, we are about 20% over average for water deliveries as a result of the dry weather. Tom Sanders asked when the Poudre is going to peak. We are thinking it will probably peak relatively soon; perhaps the last week of May, Mr. Pineda replied. That is about 2 weeks early, but everything is advanced about 2 weeks sooner than normal, and there have only been about 2 weeks of storage. The River was flowing recently at about 1,000 cfs in terms of native flow, he explained. Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 4 The snow pack numbers came in pretty low for May first, he continued. The streamflow forecast based on the snowpack, at least for the Poudre, is estimated at 62% of average, which is about 176,000 Ac-ft. Normal is about 288,000 Ac-ft. "It looks like we are in a rather dry period because we haven't had the May precipitation we usually get," he concluded. How is the low flow affecting our rights? Tom Sanders wanted to know. It really hasn't affected a lot of our rights, except our junior storage in Joe Wright, Mr. Pineda replied. Otherwise, we are making a couple of exchanges on the river right now, and we are taking most of our direct flows out of pipelines. We carried over from last year, about 4600 Ac-ft of CBT water, he added. Tom Sanders also wanted to know about the Michigan Ditch flows. It's flowing about 9-10 efs right now, Mr. Pineda said. We are already having to make the Meadow Creek replacements on that water back to the Michigan River, he explained. "Is there any cause for alarm on water supply based on what we are seeing right now?" Neil Grigg asked. In our planning process, we have reserved enough for a dry year situation, he responded. He thinks locally the supply of CBT water will have to be re-evaluated from the 60% quota. "I don't know if some of the irrigation companies can make it on 60%," he added. Tom Sanders asked if we are making any changes in our rental policies. We have reached nearly all of the previous rentals to date, Mr. Pineda said. Those were sent out in early April and May. We have rented about 18,000 Ac-ft, with about 15,000 of that coming out of North Poudre, CBT and WSSC. Additional calls have been coming in on rental water, and "we've just been taking the requests, but haven't been acting on them." "I have been holding back to see what the crest of the Poudre looks like and to see what the Northern District does," he concluded. Report on Meeting with East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Mike Smith attended the meeting, and said that Tim Dow represented the Water Board. Council Members Loren Maxey and Gerry Horak were there also. It was a good meeting with the ELCO Board. "We talked about various issues, but nothing in detail," he said. That was left for later meetings. The conclusion was that the groups want to cooperate, resolve some issues, share information, and try to reach an agreement on service area boundaries as we did with the south district. Mr. Smith went on to say that ELCO is interested in acquiring information from the Utility regarding our drought study and raw water supplies, so they can evaluate their situation. Their supply is mainly CBT water. They also want information from the Utility on training and safety, cross connection control, water conservation and public education programs, and Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 5 construction and engineering specifications and standards. We may also work on some emergency assistance types of agreements, he said. Ray Herrmann wanted to know if ELCO still has an independent role to play. "Would it be better for them to just fold their operations into the City?" "They don't quite see it that way." Mr. Smith stated. Their area covers most of the northeast part of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). There is considerable undeveloped land in that area, and they are hoping that it will be developed and that they will be able to serve it. They see themselves as a viable utility in the future, Mr. Smith emphasized. Neil Grigg asked how many customers they serve. About 3,000, compared to the City, which has 24,000, Mr. Smith replied. They appear to be committed to the improvements they need to make. They recently completed a master plan of their system. They are set up as a quasi - municipal special district, he explained. Tom Sanders asked if we have ever tried to buy them out. Mr. Smith explained that there is special legislation that deals with how districts are dissolved. It generally has to go to a vote of the customers. The City actually went through that with Mountain View Sanitation District. About 20 years ago the City reached an agreement with them which stated that when their debt was paid off, they would dissolve, and that was before all the special district legislation. Two years ago they conducted a special election, after which all of their assets were tumed over to the City. Ray Herrmann commented that "it looks like Boxelder and ELCO used to cooperate, but they can't seem to get along now." As a result, he suspects that costs will be going up for both of them. Neil Grigg asked if the City has any kind of working relationship with Boxelder. "We told them we would be interested in talking with them but they don't seem to want to talk with us, and it's creating some problems," Mike Smith responded. Some industries that have expressed an interest in locating north of Fort Collins refuse to consider it when they find out that Boxelder will provide wastewater treatment service. Neil Grigg asked if the City Council has any kind of policy committee dealing with that or do they expect the Utility to provide input? "I think they are looking for input, since they don't have an established policy," Mr. Smith replied. President Grigg suggested that if there is a group that gives bad service and is hampering economic development as well, perhaps it might be helpful for the Water Board to learn more about the situation. It may be that the Board could decide how it would like to channel information to the Council about the problems with Boxelder. Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 6 He concluded the discussion by saying that he is glad that the process has begun for cooperation between Fort Collins and ELCO. He asked if a time has been set for another meeting. Mike Smith said staff hopes to schedule a meeting in June. Committee Reports Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance A summary report on the status of legislative items was included in the packets. Most items were either passed and signed by the governor, killed or postponed indefinitely. Conservation and Public Education The Conservation and Public Education Committee met on Wednesday, May 13th. Jim Clark spoke to the group about the current conservation public education program, and about his role as conservation specialist. The Committee decided not to meet during the summer months. They will schedule their next meeting in September when they will have their 3-month review of what staff is doing in terms of each resolution item. In October they will discuss zero interest loans. The Committee and staff are excited about the Children's Water Festival on Tuesday, May 19th. Staff members, particularly Wendy Williams and Jim Clark, have worked hard for several months on the event. MaryLou Smith has a 4th grade daughter who will participate in the festival. She has been diligently studying the trivia questions which staff formulated for the event. Ms. Smith was very impressed with the quality and depth of the questions. Neil Grigg related that he was talking with a person in the development business who is concerned, along with other colleagues in the development arena, about a new City ordinance dealing with erosion control. Dr. Grigg thought it might be related to one of the points in the Demand Management Resolution. Staff pointed out that the Storm Drainage Utility developed an ordinance within the last year. It contains guidelines for construction to ensure that the soil and sod aren't washed away when "everything is exposed," Dave Frick explained. Engineering Committee No report Regional Water Supply Report President Grigg reminded the Board that they decided at the last meeting to include a regional water supply report on each month's agenda. Today's report by Dennis Bode provided background information and included a packet of handouts to be used for future reference. n U Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 7 Mr. Bode said that his report is in response to requests by several Board members for some background information on the Poudre Basin. Most of the information came from the Poudre Basin study, which was completed in early 1987. The first in a series of slides showed a map of the Poudre Basin. Mr. Bode pointed out that most of the runoff from the Poudre Basin comes from the upper part of the basin. There are primarily three sources of water used in the basin: 1) Native runoff which is primarily from the high country snow melt; 2) Trans -basin imports which include the Grand River Ditch and Laramie-Poudre Tunnel, both owned by WSSC, and the City's Michigan Ditch; and 3) CBT and Windy Gap water which come through Horsetooth Reservoir. The map also showed irrigated lands as of 1980. Water use is primarily from Fort Collins, Greeley, the water districts, and the agricultural area which extends from Wellington to east of the Greeley area. The next side depicted the Poudre Basin supplies based on the Cache La Poudre Basin study. The bar graphs indicated the estimated native flow, trans -basin supply and CBT delivery from 1951-1980, and the average. Essentially this graph shows that there is a lot of variation from year to year. MaryLou Smith also pointed out how CBT water makes up the difference. Mr. Bode added that in many years the native supply gets pretty low. He related that there is a fairly long record on the gage at the mouth of the Poudre for the earlier years. Another point Mr. Bode stressed was that this is the 6th year where we have been either below or about average. We had dry years in 1987, 89, and this year is below average too. The effect of that is reflected in the Northern District's 60% quota at this point. Because of the below average years, Lake Granby has not been refilled. The next slide showed the average annual water supply available in the Cache La Poudre Basin. Native Runoff Transbasin Imports CBT Deliveries Windy Gap Deliveries Total Supply Return Flows to Poudre Total Available for Diversion Ac-Ft/Yr 280,000 40,000 90,000 5,000 415,000 150,000 565,000 Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Bode noted that when you look at diversions you suddenly realize that more water has been diverted than what was originally there because of the return flows. This slide also showed how the Poudre Basin water supply is used and that was divided into diversions and consumptive use. Municipal and Industrial users account for 55,000 Ac-ft per year in diversions, or 10%. Primarily included in this are Fort Collins, Greeley and the Districts. Consumptive Use in this category is 22,000 Ac-ft. or 5%. About 410,000 Ac-ft is diverted for agricultural use, which accounts for 73% of the supply. Consumptive use for ag. is 293,000 Ac-ft or 71 %. About 100,000 Ac-ft flows out of the Poudre into the South Platte River, which is a long term average, and is about 17% of the supply. The 100,000 is primarily from average or above average years during peak flows. In the wet year of 1983, for example, there was close to 600,000 Ac-ft that flowed out of the Basin. Neil Grigg pointed out that this is the water that would be used for storage in a Halligan or Grey Mountain Reservoir project or in any storage project. He also commented that under a Nebraska -Colorado compact, 300,000 Ac-ft in the South Platte River, has to be delivered to Nebraska. Tom Sanders asked how the Thornton project will impact the Basin use. Mr. Bode said that is part of the WSSC water. Eventually Thornton plans to take about 67,000 Ac-ft that they will divert from the supply, and in the future some of that is expected to come back as return flow. The next 2 slides were maps prepared by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority (CWRPDA). These were included in the Poudre Basin Study to show the existing water supply systems. Mr. Bode provided them mainly as references, because they show most of the ditches and where the water is used. Mr. Bode displayed a large map that Thornton prepared for their project. It highlights the four main ditch systems, and also shows the land that Thornton purchased, so one can get an idea of the distribution of those lands. They are all basically under the WSSC system. The next slide was a diagram of the ditch and reservoir systems in Water District 3. A key included at the bottom indicated the owners of the various systems. The next map showed the diversions along the Poudre River, including the North Fork, the main stem, the stretch towards Greeley, and all of the main ditches coming out of the Poudre. Mr. 0 Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 9 Bode pointed out that the bigger systems are all high on the river. Below the Lake Canal and Coy Ditch, it is mostly return flows that satisfy most of the demands from the other ditch systems below that point. He added that it depends on the type of year whether that is completely true. Paul Clopper asked if the water quality is significantly different in those lower systems. In general as you go down lower, there is a deterioration in quality, Mr. Bode replied. Tom Sanders asked the location of the proposed wastewater treatment plant No. 3 relative to Greeley No. 2 ditch. It's actually below the Greeley No. 2 diversion, Mr. Bode answered. To give an idea of the actual quantity from each of the diversions, staff prepared a list by diversion structure indicating the average annual volume for 1951-1980, beginning with the highest point on the system to the lowest. The top two on the list are North Poudre Ditch Co. with 29,172 Ac-ft, and Munroe Canal at 34,555 Ac-ft, both owned by the North Poudre Irrigation Co. Of the larger diversions, next is the Larimer County Canal at 77,204, which is in the WSSC system; followed by Larimer & Weld Canal, 75,840, owned by the Larimer-Weld Irrigation Co. Next in line is Greeley No. 2 Ditch, 47,846, a part of the New Cache Irrigation Co. Mr. Bode pointed out that two companies on the list no longer divert on the River: Josh Ames Ditch and Chaffee Ditch. Both have been transferred to the City. Neil Grigg commented that the City appears to be a pretty small player in the diversions. Mr. Bode explained that the list is somewhat misleading because of the historic period. "We probably use three times as much water as we did in the 1960s. Relatively speaking, however, we still are a fairly small player," he acknowledged. MaryLou Smith wondered, in terms of water supply strategy, are the four major irrigation companies Mr. Bode mentioned the ones with whom we should pursue options? These are where the large quantities of water are, Mr. Bode said. The other factor that may enter into it is that the list starts high on the River and works its way down in elevation in terms of where the company diverts. Once you get below Larimer & Weld, it's essentially return flows, he pointed out. Mr. Bode said another way to look at the situation is with a Poudre River flow profile, which was depicted on the next slide. The profile reflected the average between 1951-1980. The line at the bottom showed the number of miles each of the structures was below the Munroe Canal. The line at the left indicated average annual flow (Ac-ft/yr) along the river from the Munroe Canal to near the Greeley gage. Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Bode said if you look at the graph you can see at any one point how many Ac-ft/yr passed that point during the 30-year period. Munroe Canal is about a mile upstream from where the old water treatment plant is. That was the first major diversion. The North Fork comes in about a mile below the Munroe. The next big inflow is CBT water coming from Horsetooth. Just downstream approximately a mile, is the Larimer County Canal. This is basically where Thornton would take their water out. There are other diversions from the southside ditches. Larimer-Weld Canal makes a big diversion. Once you get below that point, it remains fairly constant because of the return flows into the system. Another interesting point is that this graphic illustrates the average. If the same profile was prepared for individual years, the peaks and valleys would be particularly noticeable. In 1954, for example, about 20,000 Ac-ft flowed from the bottom of the Poudre as compared to the 100,000 Ac-ft flowing out during the long term average. In order to tie the basin supply a little closer to the Fort Collins water supply, staff provided a table that showed the percentages that the City owns. Of the CBT units, the City owns 6.02%. In the Poudre Basin about 40% of the units are delivered into the Basin. The other big blocks of water are North Poudre and Pleasant Valley & Lake Co. That concluded the formal presentation. Mr. Bode then asked for questions and comments. What is the impact of the CBT water that is tending to be used farther south, and if there is an impact, will that affect us in terms of return flow (loss of return flow from the Poudre Basin)? Dave Frick asked. There are a significant number of purchases being transacted outside the Poudre Basin, Mr. Bode replied. Fort Morgan and Fort Lupton both have purchased large quantities of CBT water. Isn't there a pipeline in the process of being built to the north Denver area? Dave Frick continued. "Yes, to the Broomfield area," Mr. Bode replied. It will deliver CBT water to several areas there. "I think it might have some impact." Of course CBT water is rather unique in terms of its ability to be reused. It is water that is used once and then it has to go back into the stream system where it can be picked up by somebody else. Dave Frick observed that if 40% of the CBT water is being used in the Poudre Basin, "that's a fair amount of return flow we are relying on." As more of that gets shifted to the Denver area, are we going to see an effect that could put some calls on and lower some yields of some of the existing ditch systems, and some of our own water for a period of time? "I think there could be some impact as I'm not sure that the percentage of ownerships will remain constant," Mr. Bode responded. Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 11 The City of Fort Collins purchased a large amount of water within the last 5 years. The water districts have all bought a number of water rights in this area. North Poudre has a block of 40,000 units which they will probably continue to use. Mr. Bode concluded that there will be substantial CBT water remaining in this area, but the distribution may change somewhat in the future. Tom Brown referred the Board to the bar chart on Poudre Basin supplies. He said he was surprised to see that CBT supplies so much water during very wet years. "I assume they don't have the storage." Historically, in wet years, the District has provided about 60% of the maximum, Mr. Bode began. The system is really designed to deliver a maximum of 310,000 Ac-ft. per year. The average delivery is more like 240,000 Ac-ft. that has been used district - wide, which works out to be about a 75 % quota. As long as you don't get into a long term drought, the pattern has been a 60% quota in the wetter years, and around 100% quota in the dryer years, so they are supplementing the basin supplies. Normally in the wetter periods Granby is close to full, so there is water available. In the dryer years the District tries to meet the needs of the people of the Basin. What we are seeing now is that we are into about 6 years of dryer weather, so Granby has been pulled down. The District has been trying to balance between meeting the needs in the Basin and filling Granby back up. It appears that "we are getting into one of those periods where it is close to a 1-in-50 type drought," Mr. Bode concluded. President Grigg thanked Mr. Bode for the very helpful information. He said the Board would look forward to further updates to learn more about our complex system. Other Business Supreme Court Upholds City Recreation Water Rights Water Board members received a copy of a press release prepared by staff, announcing a landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court on April 20th. It clears the way for the City of Fort Collins to obtain water Rights for two diversion dams located along the Poudre Corridor. The release states that the City filed for the water rights in 1986 to protect recreational, fishery, and wildlife uses of the water from being dried tip parts of the year by a water project proposed by the City of Thornton. Dr. Grigg remarked that "people are talking about its being one of those landmark rulings." Mike Smith explained that initially when the City applied for recreational rights, the water court only gave the City water rights for one point and denied the other request, whereas the Supreme Court has given the City rights for both points. The Supreme Court upheld that they were not Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 12 instream flows as Thornton claimed they were; they were actual diversions in the stream, complying with state statutes. The down side to the decision is the Supreme Court was not convinced that the appropriation date was correct, so they sent that back to the water court to determine the appropriation date. "There are some other minor issues we need to work on, but all -in -all it turned out well for us." Mr. Smith concluded. Ray Herrmann pointed out that the last part of the release states that the date of appropriation determines who has the senior water rights and will have the first right to receive the water. The outcome of these issues, as well as similar issues involved in Thornton's claims, will determine whether Fort Collins or Thornton ultimately obtains the senior rights. "Is there any real possibility of Thornton getting senior rights?" Mike Smith responded that potentially there is, because the Supreme Court set up some standards which could make the City's date December 31, 1986, which could be behind Thornton. "However, Thornton hasn't received a decree yet, and if they do, more than likely it will be appealed too. If they have to live up to the same tough standards we did with the Supreme Court, they may not get that date either," he pointed out. Tom Brown asked if staff could prepare a summary of what this case entails. It's still confusing to him. Mr. Smith said he would try to get the Utility's attorney to write a summary, because he agreed that it is a complicated issue. Recognition for Tim Dow Mike Smith wanted to recognize Time Dow who was instrumental in helping the City Parks and Recreation Department. The Utility has been trying to encourage P&R to use raw water in their new parks. A new park is being built near the Larimer & Weld Canal. The Parks Dept. contacted the Latimer & Weld people trying to make arrangements to get water delivered from the canal so they can irrigate the park. Initially L&W said no. Tim Dow spent considerable effort working with the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Co., arfd finally convinced them that this arrangement would be beneficial to the Company. They now have entered into an agreement with P&R. "Due to Tim Dow's efforts, the park will have raw water to use for irrigation instead of using treated water." Mr. Smith stressed. Field Trips for the Water Board Tom Sanders would like staff to schedule one or two field trips for the Water Board this summer. He is particularly interested in visiting the Meadow Springs Ranch, the site of the proposed new wastewater treatment plant, Halligan Reservoir and the sludge farm. President Grigg suggested that the Board could take a field trip in place of a regularly scheduled meeting. Of course, in order to have enough time, the tours would have to begin earlier than the meeting • Water Board Minutes May 15, 1992 Page 13 does. MaryLou Smith agreed that would be the best way of getting the most Board members to participate. Mike Smith assured the Board that one or two field trips will be arranged soon. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Water Board Secretary