Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/08/2008Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Monday, December 08, 2008 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Doug Yadon, 484-3611 David Roy, 217-5506 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 Robin Pierce, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Doug Yadon, Vice Chairperson Gina Janett, Board Members Steve Balderson, Johannes Gessler, Gary Wockner, Phil Phelan, David Pillard, Reagan Waskom, Mike Connor, John Barthalow and Eileen Domfest Board Absent None Staff Present Kevin Gertig, Brian Janonis, Dennis Bode, Robin Pierce, Jenny Lopez-Filkins, Jim Hibbard, Carrie Daggett, Cliff Hoelscher, Laurie D'Audney, Lisa Voytko, Susan Strong and Meagan Peil Guests Peter Mayer, Mark Lorie, John Monson, Harold Evans, Laura Kinney, Kelly Roush, Elma Avila- Portillo and Adam Groth Meeting Convened Chairperson Doug Yadon called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. Public Comment None Minutes of November 20, 2008, Meeting Board Member Balderson moved to approve the minutes from the November 20, 2008, meeting. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Water Conservation Plan Water Conservation Specialist Laurie D'Audney, Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode and consultant Peter Mayer of Aquacraft, Inc. presented the Water Conservation Plan with the objective to have the Water Board give a recommendation to Council to adopt the Plan. Staff worked from the concept that the current conservation program would be continued. However, based on recommendations from the Water Board, the program plan was expanded. This plan is a strong step forward to encourage efficiency in Fort Collins and is one of largest increases proposed for conservation. In reviewing the history of the Water Conservation Plan, staff was asked in 2006 to draft a new plan. In 2007, Peter Mayer from Aquacraft, Inc. was hired as a consultant for this plan and helped model the savings from the various water conservation measures. The draft plan was open for public comment in late 2007. This version of the Plan was revised to reflect the comments received from the Water Board and public. The Plan follows the guidelines from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. There are many uses for water, most importantly health and safety including good drinking water, and water for cleaning, washing, firefighting and irrigation. We provide water to homes, schools and industries, and water is important for landscaping, trees, shrubs and vegetable gardens. Conservation is very important to this also. One of the goals in conservation is having an ethic about conserving and eliminating waste. Citizens have been aware of the conservation issues since the drought and have embraced conservation. Also, another goal of the Plan is to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability and working with Utilities to conform to the 215' Century Sustainability Plan. With this Water Conservation Plan, we will see reduced costs for the water utility and for customers with using less water. The demand is not as high and rates will be lower as a result. We also prepare for climate change in the area with a hotter, drier climate. Water supply with the run-off times possibly changing and possibly not having the same water supply available as before. We have already seen the decline in water use in Fort Collins. Between 1998 and 2001, before the drought water usage averaged 200 gallons per day and during the drought restrictions in late 2002, the annual usage was 155 gallons per day (gpd). In the last five years, the annual water usage has been consistent to 155 gpd and with a 22 '/z percent reduction in water usage. Do you have any corresponding graphs that show the rates during that time? Yes, we do, but not in this presentation. Is it fair to say in a generalization that the rates had gone up during that period of time? With an effort to took at the rate structure during that time, the unit costs overall went up quite dramatically and so the tiered rate system was implemented. Is there a cause and effect between the rate structure and the water usage? Yes. Board Member Wockner commented about climate change meaning "a hotter and drier" climate and more water usage. However, everyone needs to keep in mind that water usage does not necessarily go up with hotter and drier years. Looking at the Southwestern region, where it is hotter and drier, the water usage drops off, and there is not a higher demand. Looking at single family and duplex water use, we are seeing a 20 percent reduction for indoor use and a 38 percent reduction in outdoor use from the pre -drought years to the post -drought years with a total 29 percent reduction overall. In commercial use, during the same time frame, we are seeing a 25 percent reduction indoor use and 18 percent outdoor reduction with a total of 22 percent reduction. N When looking at outdoor usage, a total of one-third of water usage is on landscape. There are different landscapes like yards full of blue grass, xeriscapes, and no water landscapes. Also, in the Climate Action Plan, there is a vision of planting more trees, and there are things to weigh when it comes to measuring outdoor water use. We are looking at the standards for landscaping yards and how it should be handled. The State model landscape ordinance uses a model with different kinds of hydro -zones; high use water zones would take about 29 inches of water to maintain, the moderate use zone approximately 16 inches, low water use zone about 5 inches and the very low to no water use zone has no water usage. Is that above the normal precipitation level? Yes, and that is the average irrigation requirement and the average application depth for the vegetation. How can you justify the 28.4 required and 13.8 used? In Fort Collins, there are different landscapes in use. There are people who have let their vegetation die off, and some that continue to irrigate their yards. We have taken the average of both of those cases into consideration and the average application of water. Shouldn't the requirement then go down? No, this will stay the same due to the climate we live in. Are you assuming what kind of landscaping people have? There is a reference requirement that blue grass in full sun would require 28.4 inches of water and then we have the actual usage during that time. Right now, there is a mix between blue grass and xeriscaping. After drought restrictions were lifted, consumers were not using as much water as before, because their lawns were doing better with less water instead of watering four days a week. Also, during this time, the rates had gone up. How did you come up with the 28.4 and 26.1? Is this assuming all blue grass? This is the irrigation requirement for blue grass, and it takes into consideration the precipitation during that time and comes from the weather stations. This is a way to compare the vegetation requirements to usage. How did you come up with 13.8? We have taken random samples of homes by using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and looked at the areas that could have landscaping on them like gardens, landscaping, lot sizes and whether they were single family homes or duplexes. Then we looked at average area and the water usage based on average water use. Board Member Wockner commented about using the word "requirement" which can be confusing to the public about actual required usage. They might think that they are not watering enough, so when presenting this information, you should use another term other than "requirement", like using the word "preference" instead of "requirement". The goal of the Water Conservation Plan is to reduce the water usage to 140 gpd by 2020. The background on the water usage has gone from 220 gallons per person (gpp) in 1988 to 155 gpp in 2007, which is a 30 percent reduction and to take this to 140 gpd would then be a 10 percent reduction in usage. This will be a challenge due to unwilling participants and the people already participating in water conservation. Achieving the most from water conservation, we would need to continue with education and conservation programs, recommending programs for indoor and outdoor water usage while reviewing the plan every five years. The budget would be over three years and would include programs, incentives and adding additional labor and programs. The budget would be between $650,000 and $700,000 for the entire plan. There is a possibility of an increase in the program cost; a decline in water revenues and rate increases are likely but is unknown at this point . Staff will continue with our annual report, tracking our goals and reviewing every five years with the thought of being aggressive. We are asking the Board for a memo in support of the Plan, and we will be meeting with Council at a work session in February to discuss the Plan and budget. Discussion: Is it better to conserve water through outdoor usage or indoor usage? The new Plan is focusing on outdoor conservation rather than indoor use, and the focus for commercial savings will be on indoor usage. Portions of the city get their water from other places like ELCO (East Larnner County Water District) and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District (FCLWD). Does the City consider water conservation in their role? Most of the water districts have adopted our conservation programs, because they are in place, and the City of Fort Collins residential water will only serve half of the City based on the development in certain areas. Could there be land use codes or a new ordinance in the new developments? We will continue with the same regulations as far as soil amendments and landscaping standards affecting water use, and the residents must follow these in order for permits to be signed off on for occupancy. Are the rebates only City ofFort Collins Utility? There are customers that are influenced by the rebates. Do ELCO and FCLWD have tiered rates? ELCO does use the tiered rate system. What were the themes and feedback from the public when this was available for comment in 2007? Some of the public comments were about the concern over rates, and some were confused about the idea of conservation to the 140 gpd goal. Suggestions from the public were the higher rebates for toilets and urinals in the commercial sector. Some of the comments were irrelevant to the plan. In Las Vegas, the city pays to remove blue grass. Could we see that here? 0 The idea would not work here because of our climate and customers being able to grow grass and have irrigation for landscaping. Why should we spend money on the water conservation? Conservation is one small part in this, because we all have to work together for the same goal and that is the effort. Board Member Connor believes this is a lot of money to spend on just a small portion of conservation. There is a lot of detail that is not clear and would be getting little to nothing in return. Board Member Wockner has really put his cards on the table, and if there are concerns about the Plan, there should be a recommendation for improvements and to be changed. Address in an improvement way then saying yes or no. There is the idea of an ethic that should be encouraging citizens to be proactive toward conservation in general, and we will have to pay though and we need to challenge that. This is leaning towards giving it back to Council by asking what is needed to do to conserve, and making it clear and aggressive with tying the goals with conservation to something tangible. Some of us would like to see the plan move faster and be more aggressive and linked to offsetting the costs of the treatment plant and possibly a smaller Halligan, because using less and needing less, this in turn would lead to less storage. We will be reviewing the plan every five years and the plan can be adjusted to goals and to the future. What was the objective? The main purpose of the Plan is to encourage the use of less water. The motion from the Water Board directs the Conservation and Public Education Committee and requests Utilities staff to prepare a draft statement of endorsement to City Council of the current draft of the Conservation Plan including the minor amendments as noted in discussion of this motion for consideration by the full Water Board at its January 2009 meeting. The endorsement may include such qualifications or clarifications as the committee and staff may find appropriate. Comments for the record: Board Member Connor will be voting no and will not recommend this Plan. The goal is not aggressive enough; it is too expensive and misses the most effective conservation tool of raising rates. The Plan needs to look at increasing water conservation in the agricultural consumption area and should concentrate on external usage after internal use is recovered. Board Member Balderson believes this Plan matches best management practices. Vice Chairperson Janett is supporting this motion because this is better than what we had and can be changed if needed. Vote: 9 for, 2 against. Motion passed. MS4 Permit Update Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong presented the new MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permit for 2008 through 2013. The permit has a new format this year and is more user friendly with definition of ranges, ongoing goals and intent of the permit. The goal of the permit is to implement and track the stormwater concerns, priorities and programs throughout Fort Collins. Public Outreach and Education: In this section of the permit, the goal is to implement a public education program in an effort to increase public awareness and promote behavioral changes by the public regarding pollutants in stormwater runoff and illicit discharges. Some of the partnerships include Colorado State University, Poudre School District and Colorado Stormwater Council. The only partnership change was with Trees, Water, and People, because the organization is no longer active in maintaining the outdoor classrooms. Also, in this section is the use of educational materials and strategies regarding the education programs for school -age children, water festivals, promotional materials and the promotion of programs on the website. Signage and stenciling are also a part of education and outreach with the ongoing tributary signs and the storm drain stenciling programs. Business outreach and stormwater outreach programs are used to convey education to businesses and the public regarding illicit discharges and the connection between land and water quality. Public Participation and Involvement: This section is to provide the public a forum to participate in the development and implementation of the stormwater program. One goal is to have the permit, possibly in a different format, placed on the website for the public to review and make comments. Some elements that have been discontinued are in the previous permit, where it stated to provide a copy of the annual report to City Council. This is no longer necessary, but if it is requested, the Council will receive a copy of the report. Another element to be discontinued is that specified groups like Poudre River Trust, Sierra Club and Friends of the Poudre were to be contacted for presentations and comments but is not necessary due to the public outreach programs. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: The goal is to reduce the frequency and severity of impact on the environment from illicit discharges and spills. A couple of changes to this section include enforcement controls and education of staff to recognize illicit discharges and spills in the field ,and these have already been put in place. Is this field staff in just stormwater or Citywide? Citywide and have been training Light and Power, Streets and Parks. Anyone out in the field is trained to recognize spills. Other program elements are the outfall maps and regulatory mechanism. These are regularly updated by staff. Stormwater staff is currently working with legal staff to update codes to implement our programs and to be able to enforce the codes. Illicit discharge detection and elimination plan is used for locating priority areas, tracing sources of illicit discharges and removing the source. This will need to be updated and sent back to the State to be approved. C:7 Construction Sites Runoff Control: This goal is to reduce sediment and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer system. The construction sites need to follow regulations, and we now are able to enforce the illicit discharges from the construction sites. Another item is to be able to enforce compliance on the sites and escalating enforcement with chronic violators. Why is the black fence left up at a construction site? It is a State requirement that the silt fence be used and needs to be functioning as it is intended. The fence needs to remain until the soil is stable, so it might be there until vegetation is grown. Or they can use other sediment control during re -vegetation, but they can continue the use of the silt fence. Some requirements for construction site operators are to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices. Stormwater is also reviewing the storm drainage criteria and construction standards. There are also requirements for operators to control waste including chemicals, litter, sanitary waste and discarding building materials. Another change to an element is to change the wording from stating that stormwater reviewed all construction site submittals and clarified to construction site erosion control plan and drainage plan in accordance to the storm drainage design criteria and construction standards. The inspection schedule will be changed from once a week to once every two weeks for erosion control. Scheduling frequency based on activity; for example, going out to check on re - vegetation once a week when a drive by would suffice once in a two week period. Post -Construction Stormwater Management: The goal of this program is to implement planning procedures and enforcement to reduce stormwater impacts resulting in new development or significant redevelopment. Develop, implement and document strategies which include discharge of pollutants from new development, enforcement of the requirements and regulations. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations: The goal is to develop standard operating procedures that could prevent pollution of stormwater. This includes activities and facilities with stormwater permits who discharge stormwater. Also, the implementation of an operation and maintenance programs including street sweeping, maintenance of catch basins and runoff control plans for all facilities. We have to describe the training and educating of employees on spill prevention, illicit discharges and pollution prevention. Discussion: Has anybody compared how this city and others with water quality and monitoring? Stormwater quality monitoring is quite difficult, and we are using CSU (Colorado State University) to analyze the data collected in the past eight years and looking for trends in the Poudre River and in Spring Creek. Have there been any perrnit violations? We have not had any permit violations. We have not compiled the data for 2008 and the main reason to move the permit presentation to the spring is to ensure the data can be presented. We did have one illicit discharge or illicit connection, and it was a sump pump attached to a sink. If 7 they had not cooperated, we could have fined them or taken the case to court to have them comply. We have received approximately 70 to 80 calls for discharges this year. We do go and investigate all of the calls and if we receive evidence the responsible party has to clean it up and if it makes it to a water of the State, then they have to also report it to the State. If the responsible party does not clean it up, we will and will charge them for it. This year we have had two cases go to court for illicit discharges. Most of what we respond to is paint in the gutters, oil in the gutter, carpet cleaner run off in the gutter and even pools of antifreeze in parking lots. Shared Vision Planning Make Lorie of Resolution Planning, LLC presented SVP (Shared Vision Planning) to the Water Board to discuss the overview, process and purpose. The objective of SVP is to involve stakeholders and managers in the formulation of water management alternatives. SVP for Halligan Seaman is the first of its kind in the United States and is the first to be used for a water supply permit. The scope and purpose are limited but despite these limitations, this is a great idea. What is SVP? It is the integration of three different practices: traditional water resources planning methods, computer modeling and systems modeling and structured participation. The planning stage is just thinking about what is wanted before making a decision. The computer models are used to integrate all environments, not just water, but how it impacts habitat, recreation and irrigation. Structured participation is meant to bring everyone into the decision making process for stakeholders and public. The website, www.sharedvisionplanning.us, is a great resource to look at the SVP process. Some of the key themes in the SVP process are to distinguish facts and values, focus on real decisions, engage stakeholders in technical process and produce computer models tailored to the decisions. Using SVP for permitting decisions was discussed for ten years before implementation. The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) process for water projects is very different from SVP, and the Corps' process has often led to controversy and lawsuits. The Corps are supportive of SVP and the best way to do this was to start out small. That is the Fort Collins/Greeley area and simplified the modeling. The first phase is to look at the expansion of the Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs and the size of each with the operation of each of them. Looking at how they will operate with one another as far as releasing water, sharing water and how they will work together in tandem with other high mountain reservoirs. There are modifications to improve environmental conditions in the North Fork between the two reservoirs and also below Seaman. Also, there is a need to look into the extension of the release season and watching the flow impacts on the mainstem. The permit decision is being kept separate SVP (Shared Vision Planning) and the Corps' decision process for permit. The goal is to produce a preferred alternative to go into the environmental report and analysis. The main goal being the improvement to Halligan Seaman planning so it clears the environmental processes. I Is the Corps an active participant in the SVP process? If so, are the people doing the permit review active participants? Chandler Peter is the engineer from the Army Corps of Engineers, and he is supportive of the SVP process and involved in meetings. Chandler is very careful to keep things separate from the Corps point of view and the Shared Vision process. The information is the preliminary work to the SVP was done in the first half to June of 2008. This included working on the model, creating workshops and answering whether this process would work. Roughly in September, involved model improvements, started the planning process, creating the groups that needed to work together and the planning workshops. The first SVP workshop was held and was used to finalize the scope of the project, organize the workgroups and identify objectives. Participants were from Greeley, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Save the Poudre, the U.S. Forest Service and applicants for the project. Absent from the workshop was the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and unfortunately, they needed to be there since they are the last word on the permit and have the power to veto the project altogether. The key outcomes from this workshop were continue to look at the impact of the flows on the mainstem and address those issues, plan for outreach to the public with this type of permit and establish rules of engagement with the work groups. The goal of the work groups is to go over issues within each group and go into the next phase or step together. The current plan is to carry on with the workshops and finalize the decision process and implement the process. The big picture for SVP is to lead to new solutions for permits and planning and to be accepted into the process of the Army Corps of Engineers. Discussion: What is the model? The model is a computer model that will show eighty years of hydrology and will track how the water releases impact the environment or impact the water. How did the City get involved? The Army Corps of Engineers brought this permit idea to us and asked if we were willing to try it based on the project. This is an opportunity to do something different. Was there consideration or thought given to the value of the broader based Board in the process? There is no reason why the Board can't be involved, and involvement of the Board must get up to speed but we encourage people being informed. By the nature of your process, is there a chance to watch and observe? Trying to be as open and transparent as possible with the process to everyone involved. Do you feel as if you have the general voice of the public? Public composed of interest groups and then there are those who believe public of general public, we want everyone to be educated and then advocacy. We really like to have the interest groups but all are welcome. Is Greeley's Water Board involved? Very involved in this process and will continue to be involved in this process. Vice Chairperson Janett believes we are seeing a lot of water projects and, with this approach, it will make it less contentious because stakeholders there earlier than later and it involves the public in decision making. Water Board Bvlaws Revisions were made to the Water Board Bylaws by Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett. The bylaws have been written to coincide with City Code. Motion to accept version presented of Water Board Bylaws with option 2 from Article 5 Section 2. Vote: 10 for, 0 against. Motion passed. Committee Reports Engineering Committee (Board Member Balderson): Will be attending the meeting on December 12, 2008 regarding Chronic Wasting Disease Prevention. Water Conservation Committee (Board Member Phelan): No report Legislative, Finance and Legal Committee (Board Member Pillard): No report Instream Flow Committee (Board Member Wockner): No report Water Supply Committee (Board Member Waskom): No report Staff Reports Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode attached the Treated Water Summary to the agenda for review. Other Business Meeting to question the alternatives included in the Halligan Seaman Project and storage reservoir, would Glade replace Halligan -Seaman. Future Agenda Items Water Conservation Plan Shared Vision Planning Update Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Meagan Peil, Board Secretary Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board o 22 2009 Si ned 2 f� 09 Meagan eil bat 10