Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/17/2011Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, November 17, 2011 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 Wade Troxell, 219-8940 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Gina Janett, Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson, Board Members Johannes Gessler, Brian Brown, Steve Malers, Lori Brunswig, Becky Goldbach, and Brett Bovee Board Absent Board Members Reagan Waskom, Phil Phelan, and Duncan Eccleston Staff Present Kevin Gertig, Donnie Dustin, Dennis Bode, Susan Smolnik, Laurie D’Audney, Carol Webb, Lisa Voytko, Link Mueller, Lance Smith, Jill Oropeza, Patty Bigner, Robin Pierce, Carrie Daggett, and Harriet Davis Guests Lee Rozaklis, Michael Pruznick, and Craig Godbout Meeting Convened Chairperson Janett called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Public Comment Michael Pruznick expressed his thoughts about water conservation. He feels that when City of Fort Collins citizens are asked to conserve, they are punished with rate increases. He would like Utilities to seek a solution that can not only help the City cover its maintenance costs, but benefit the citizens as well. He would like to see a fair sharing model in place that calculates relative usage per month. He stated this is a not a perfect model, but feels it is worth investigating and feels there are lots of advantages to this type of model. Mr. Pruznick stated he has also presented his ideas to the Economic Advisory Commission. Board discussion: A board member asked if this model has been used somewhere before and if there is data available. Mr. Pruznick stated he has not seen this model used before and does not have any data. Chairperson Janett stated there may be some changes in the future with billing when the new automatic meters are implemented. Approval of October 20, 2011 Minutes Board Member Gessler moved to approve the minutes from the October 20, 2011 meeting. Board Member Malers seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 2 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Attachments available upon request). Water Resources Engineer Donnie Dustin introduced the item and introduced Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode. Lee Rozaklis, consultant with AMEC Earth and Environmental, was also available to answer questions. Why Update the Policy? The current policy was last adopted in 2003. Mr. Dustin outlined the reasons for updating the policy including significant reductions in water use, the continued need to provide a reliable water supply, to prepare for potential effects of climate change, the increased focus on the use of surplus raw water, the importance of fostering regional cooperation, and to align with Plan Fort Collins and incorporate sustainability efforts. Policy Update Process The process to date has focused primarily on a Community Working Group that included 19 individuals. Three water board members were a part of this group. The group members helped draft the policy update that was provided in the Water Board packet. The policy is presented to the Water Board to discuss their considerations. There will also be outreach to other boards and commissions and other interested organizations. A landscape preference survey will also be implemented. The policy will be discussed in a City Council Work Session on January 10, 2012. Policy Update Changes Mr. Dustin outlined changes to the policy, including aligning with Plan Fort Collins, demand management to reduce water conservation goal to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), water supply reliability and associated planning criteria, looking at additional supplies and facilities, exploring long term rental/sharing arrangements with agriculture, and maintaining water quality and regional cooperation. Community Working Group Findings Mr. Dustin stated there was a high level of agreement among the working group members with most elements of the updated policy. There were some divergent views from several members on the planning criteria numbers. Several members thought planning demand level (162 gpcd) was too high. Some members thought drought criterion should be higher (1-in-75 or 1-in-100); however, most members agreed with the numbers. Setting the numbers aside, there was full support on the policy update from all members present at the final meeting (except one with some reservations). Planning Criteria The 1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion was developed in the 1985 Drought Study and has been used since the 1988 Water Supply Policy. This has provided a reliable supply system to date and has been used by the City of Greeley, a partner in the Halligan Seaman Water Management Project (HSWMP). This provides a reasonable level when compared with other Colorado water providers. Board discussion: A board member questioned the statement concerning “reasonable level” and asked for clarification on the meaning. Mr. Dustin stated this is based on a 1-in-50 level. Several other communities along the Front Range use a 1-in-100 level. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 3 Chairperson Janett stated the City of Fort Collins is less conservative than some of the other communities. Even though some of the other communities may be more conservative, there is a price tag to that in regards to storage. Mr. Dustin explained the 15 percent safety factor. This means that 15 percent of annual demand is in storage through design drought criterion (1-in-50). This equates to approximately three months of winter demand and approximately 1 month of summer demand. This provides storage reserve to address a short-term emergency situation. The planning demand level of 162 gpcd was developed to consider potential increases in outdoor water use due to projected climate change. This recognizes that water supply projects take many years to develop and also accounts for other future uncertainties. Potential Uncertainties Mr. Dustin outlined the potential uncertainties. The water supply system modeling does not include potential climate change impacts to water supplies, potential Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project curtailment, potential system failures, or supply blending for optimal treated water quality. This assumes 4,200 acre-feet to Fort Collins from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) as part of the Reuse Plan. Potential Ramifications of Changing Criteria Changes to the criteria would require extensive study, time, and expense. Potential effects of climate change should be carefully assessed. Changing the criteria could significantly delay the HSWMP permitting process. This could include potential revisions to the project purpose and need, alternatives analysis, and modeling efforts. In 2008, the gpcd was changed from 185 to 162 to recognize lower usage. Recent changes not reflected in the permitting process include lower gpcd and higher population projections. Changes would not only impact Fort Collins, but the HSWMP partners as well. Planning Criteria Summary Water supply planning is a long-term process with many uncertainties. Planning criteria seeks to balance the benefits and risks of developing a reliable water supply with the associated costs and impacts. These criteria determine the amount of supplies and facilities needed. Planning for higher use levels will likely create additional surplus supplies for other uses. Considering all these factors, staff believes these criteria are reasonable. Policy Update Summary Mr. Dustin outlined the key changes to the policy including the conservation goal of 140 gpcd, acknowledging the water supply planning criteria, a stronger commitment to using surplus supplies, and aligning with Plan Fort Collins and sustainability efforts. Input from the Community Working Group helped update the policy to address many issues and the policy update provides additional guidance for water supply and demand planning. Board discussion: Chairperson Janett expressed her thanks for including the implications on the Halligan-Seaman project in the presentation. She asked Board Member Gessler, a member of the Community Working Group, for his thoughts on the process and the policy. Mr. Gessler stated the group primarily agreed on policy language, and the only exception to that concerns the specific numeric values. He thought the group worked well together and he expressed thanks to staff and to the consultants for guiding the committee and keeping them on track. Mr. Gessler asked for clarification on the process for approving the motion brought before the board. Chairperson Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 4 Janett stated she would like staff to entertain questions from the board members before voting on the motion. She stated that even though the community working group was a diverse group of individuals, there was agreement on policy language for the most part. There were differences of opinions on the criteria. She stated it is very important for the Water Board to understand the criteria before changes are recommended. She also noted Board Member Gessler has suggested some recommended motions. A board member questioned a statement in the Community Working Group Charter stating that three Water Board Members will serve as liaisons. He asked for clarification on the meaning of this statement. Chairperson Janett stated the three members could be viewed as resources to assist the other members in understanding the policy more in depth and any opinions expressed did not represent the opinions of the entire board. Chairperson Janett stated the Water Board is basing its recommendation to Council on the nine page draft policy attached in the packet for tonight’s meeting. A board member questioned that if a particular board member has edits to the policy, does the board have to vote on any changes? Vice Chairperson Balderson recommended the board could make recommendations to the policy; however, due to the length of the policy document, it would take a lot of time to edit every single section within the time frame of tonight’s meeting. A board member gave a suggestion to the document. He recommended the word “determine” be changed to “estimate” in Section 2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria. Mr. Bode stated it would be appropriate for board members to make these types of recommendations to the policy; however, he is concerned with the board suggesting major changes at this point in time. A board member asked for clarification on the statement on page 1 for “sustainable and integrated approach” to water demand and water resources management as it relates to the policy objective. Mr. Dustin stated the policy objective aligns with Policy ENV 21.2 from the Plan Fort Collins document. The board member also expressed concerns about the context of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach to the policy. She feels that the TBL aspects should more fully integrate the social benefit. For example, there is a social benefit to having a healthy environment. Mr. Dustin stated this aspect is considered as part of the overall view with the TBL analysis. A board member expressed concern about the concept of demand management. He feels the policy relates more to the City’s water conservation plan versus demand management. He suggested more demand management components should be included in the next revision of the policy. Mr. Bode stated the water demand drives a lot of what happens on the water supply side and the water conservation plan contains much more detail on specific demand management measures. Chairperson Janett stated if the policy was neutral on demand management, the City would still have flat water rates. The tiered rate structure is a demand management tool. How the rates are set causes and encourages the demand. The water supply planning in the future has to link with the demand management. This policy incorporates the key components of the water demand management. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 5 Mr. Dustin stated that prior to the 2003 policy, there was a separate water supply policy and water conservation policy. Council asked Utilities to combine the two policies into one document. A board member expressed concerns about the statement for the City’s urban landscaping in Section 1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use. He suggested this should also include suggestions for land use. Chairperson Janett stated the direction concerning land use comes from the City’s Planning Department based on population projections and anticipated lot sizes. She stated there could be suggestions back to the Planning Department for using less water. Mr. Bode stated there has been communication between Utilities and the Planning Department concerning landscaping and water use issues. There is not a complete separation between planning and water use. The City has implemented smaller lots due to water use and infrastructure issues. A board member asked if this should be stated in the policy. Perhaps there could be one statement asking other departments to consider water use suggestions. A board member stated there should be a section at the end of the policy containing references to other documents where land use is discussed in a broader sense. Chairperson Janett suggested the policy contain a paragraph describing the process as land use changes occur. There should be an interactive approach to this process. Mr. Dustin stated the first point could be modified as follows, “continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping and land use planning.” Chairperson Janett stated she will draft a memo to Council highlighting the recommended changes to the policy. Mr. Dustin stated since the policy goes to a Council Work Session in January, changes to the policy can still be suggested by the board members. A board member suggested the last bullet in Section 1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management should read as follows, “prepare for potential impact of climate change.” In Section 1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use, the statement “and is not intended to be used for water supply planning purposes” seems to contradict the gpcd goal. The board member also asked for clarification on Footnote 2. Is the loss at the tap or at the treatment facility? Mr. Dustin stated the loss is at the treatment facility. Mr. Bode clarified that “water produced for use” is the water coming from the treatment facility. A board member stated there is no discussion relating to indoor use versus outdoor use or differentiation between customer classes. Should the policy clarify the gpcd for all customer classes? Also, with the implementation of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI), if better data is available in the future, can different water conservation measures be implemented by customer class? Can this be placed in a section on monitoring and updating? A board member suggested the second sentence in Section 1.3 Water Rate Structures should read as follows, “…sufficient revenue for operational purposes and capital projects.” Mr. Bode stated the statement is aimed primarily on operational and maintenance type expenses, rather than capital projects. A board member expressed concern about the third bullet in Section 2.0 Water Supply Reliability stating, “Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances.” He suggested the Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 6 statement read as follows, “Maintaining a water storage reserve to account for seasonal and hydrologic variations and unforeseen circumstances.” He also questioned the sixth bullet in Section 2.0 stating, “Collaboration with the City’s neighboring water providers and users.” He suggested changing “neighboring” to “regional” since the term “regional” appears in other sections of the policy. A board member questioned the statement concerning customers versus the community as a whole. Is this referring to agricultural customers? Chairperson Janett stated this language is used in the policy because there are City residents who do not receive City water. Has the City implemented the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan to date? Mr. Dustin stated this plan was developed and implemented during the drought that became severe in 2003. The City has not implemented mandatory restrictions since that time. What are the two categories of water use the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan targets first? How has the water use dropped from average when the shortage response plan is implemented? Mr. Bode stated the water use is measured every day. Both indoor use and outdoor use are considered in the plan. In a 1-in-50 year drought, we assume we can operate as normal (162 gpcd is the average water use over the last five years). The board member suggested advocating a lower number such as 140 gpcd. Chairperson Janett stated the Community Working Group did look at the details of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. There was unanimous support from the members for the plan. People will use less water during a drought before the plan is implemented. Mr. Bode stated that early in 2002, there was a voluntary approach to reduce water use. Restrictions were implemented in July 2002. In 2003, there was a desire to continue with the restrictions because there were concerns about long term water supply. Mr. Dustin stated the planning criteria are used to dictate the supply and restrictions are usually implemented before the drought level (i.e. 1-in-50 year) is known since the drought could continue and become more severe. A board member stated the 1-in-50 year drought criteria is not as conservative as some, but is in the norm. There is also the safety factor of 15 percent. If there is value in comparing our process to other communities, the planning needs to incorporate the other components so it is compared “apples to apples.” Mr. Rozaklis stated the planning demand level should be a relatively conservative projection before there are restrictions. The safety factor is a separate allowance if something major goes wrong. Regarding future water storage needs, do the three components add to additional water storage each with their own component? Mr. Rozaklis stated when the City looks at any combination of the three criteria, the model takes into account the varying timing of peaks. Mr. Dustin stated the 1-in-50 year criteria are a set of hydrology that the supplies and facilities are run through. The planning demand level dictates the demand the City needs to meet. The safety factor is taken into account in case of an emergency. Would the change in Halligan storage be relatively small? Mr. Dustin stated the Utility would need about 10,500 acre-feet of storage at Halligan Reservoir based on this set of criteria. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 7 A board member stated Halligan storage is primarily an insurance policy. The impacts on the river would not take place every year. Mr. Bode stated that the purpose of Halligan is partially for insurance, but there is also an operational purpose. Mr. Dustin stated there are some contractual demands. There will be some storage necessary to meet these needs. If the planning demand number is changed from 162 gpcd to 153 gpcd, what is the margin of difference in the storage? Mr. Dustin stated there was only a small difference with modeling based on that number. What would it cost the City to change the drought criteria? Mr. Dustin stated that changing the criteria would require extensive study and new modeling in the permitting process. Mr. Bode stated the Purpose and Need Report would have to be changed as well. Chairperson Janett asked the board if they have additional changes to the policy language. A board member asked for clarification on the last paragraph in Section 4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes concerning allowing voluntary contributions from ratepayers for specific programs. Chairperson Janett stated this statement pertains to a mechanism for ratepayers to voluntarily fund non-drinking water purposes such as instream flows or river restoration projects. A board member stated she would like the policy to address industrial water conservation. Water Conservation Specialist Laurie D’Audney stated there are programs that address this, such as Climate Wise, but these programs are not specifically mentioned in this policy. These programs are part of the Water Conservation Plan. Chairperson Janett stated the second sentence in Section 4.1.2 Instream Flows concerning associated regulatory requirements should be clarified. Mr. Dustin stated the intention is to go beyond what is required with the regulatory requirements. This statement can be modified per her suggestion. A board member suggested the last sentence in Section 2.1.2 Drought Criterion should read as follows, “and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.” He also suggested the first sentence in Section 2.2 Climate Change contain a statement for seasonal timing as it relates to the impact of the reliability of the City’s supply. A board member asked for clarification on Section 2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. Should it be dated as the 2003 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan? Mr. Dustin stated this is per a City Council ordinance. A board member stated perhaps the second sentence in Section 4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes concerning significant quantities of surplus raw water should be moved to the beginning of Section 4.0. A board member suggested the second sentence in Section 5.0 Regional Cooperation be modified to read as follows, “…define a way to meet future water supply needs in a manner to minimize negative impacts to agricultural economies.” Mr. Dustin stated staff would consider this change, but this wording came directly from the Community Working Group. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 8 A board member suggested the work with the state be mentioned in Section 5.3 Working with Others. There is no direct mention of working with the state and the statewide studies. Chairperson Janett asked if the excess stored in Halligan can be used by the City for instream flow if it is not specifically mentioned in the Halligan Purpose and Need Report? Can Halligan water be used for this purpose? Mr. Bode stated there may be opportunities in the interim that will benefit the river and local agriculture. Mr. Dustin stated permit conditions have not been discussed yet. His understanding was that as long as the permit conditions and as long as the conditions are not violated, there will likely be opportunities for other uses. Mr. Rozaklis stated there could be interim uses for the reservoir as long as they do not preclude what the reservoir was designed for permanently. A board member suggested staff should conduct a sensitivity analysis on the planning demand level of 162 gpcd to look at a cost and benefit analysis as it relates to the safety factor. This may provide an opportunity to raise the safety factor and reduce the risk. Does the safety factor primarily deal with Halligan Reservoir? Mr. Dustin stated the safety factor also includes the storage levels at Joe Wright Reservoir. Discussion on the motion: Board Member Gessler gave a background on the recommended motion. He feels the proposed planning demand level of 162 gpcd is too high and recommends using the average over the last five years (153 gpcd). The number can be adjusted if there are climate changes. He feels that a specific project should not dictate what is in the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy language. A board member stated changing the gpcd number is costly to the City and may not provide much benefit. He also suggested that perhaps it should be based on a ten year average. A board member reminded the board that changing the number changes the Halligan storage capacity. Perhaps the focus should be on what to do with the surplus water year to year. Chairperson Janett expressed concerns about maintaining the existing urban landscaping. Is it possible to maintain the existing landscaping in light of a warming climate? She feels residents will change their landscaping voluntarily and feels caution should be executed when maintaining urban landscaping. Does changing the demand level to an historical average impact the Halligan permit? Mr. Bode stated that changing the number would have an impact. The modeling is set up for a level of 162 gpcd. If that number is changed, the modeling will change. A board member questioned the statement from the presentation concerning “right sizing” the amount of storage needed. Once Halligan is built, can the number be changed? Mr. Bode stated Board Member Gessler moved to change the first sentence in Section 2.1.1 Planning Demand Level to read as follows, “The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita demand level equivalent to the average consumption of the previous five years. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water use efficiency goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.” Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 9 the policy will be updated again in 5-7 years, and there will be opportunities to revise as necessary. Vote on the motion: 2 for (Gessler and Balderson), 6 against (Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, and Malers) The motion does not carry. Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, and Malers cited the margin of change and the financial costs to the Halligan-Seaman permitting process as their primary reasons for voting against the motion. Discussion on the motion: Board Member Gessler gave background on his recommended motion. He feels our society likes to have everything excessively safe. He is fine with imposing water restrictions if necessary. Is there a plan to update that model to consider climate change? Mr. Dustin stated there is a Front Range Climate Change Vulnerability Study due to come out soon that the City of Fort Collins has been involved in. However; results from this study have not been incorporated into the City’s water supply modeling. A board member stated he feels both of the motions are valid, but he feels it is unnecessary to make modifications in the middle of the Halligan EIS process. Vote on the motion: 1 for (Gessler), 7 against (Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, Malers, and Balderson) The motion does not carry. Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, Malers, and Balderson cited the cost to change the model as their primary reason for voting against the motion. Discussion on the motion: Board Member Gessler gave background on his recommended motion. He feels the 15 percent safety factor is inadequate. He would like to increase the percentage from 15 percent to 20 percent over the next ten years. Board Member Gessler moved to change the wording in Section 2.1.2 Drought Criterion from “1-in-50 year drought event” to “1-in-40 year drought event.” Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Board Member Gessler moved to change the paragraph in Section 2.1.3 Safety Factor to read as follows, “The City’s water supply reliability planning is to incorporate measures over the next ten years to systematically increase the safety factor of having currently 15 percent of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought to having at least 20 percent on annual demand in storage. This safety factor provides an additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed a 1-in-50 year drought.” Board Member Balderson seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 10 If the safety factor is changed to 20 percent, does that automatically increase the size of Halligan Reservoir by five percent? Mr. Dustin stated there would be approximately a 2,000 acre feet increase in the size of Halligan Reservoir. Board Member Gessler stated this storage capacity could occur in another location besides Halligan Reservoir. A board member asked if the third motion is dependent on the approval of the first two motions. Board Member Gessler stated this motion is independent from the first two recommended motions. A board member stated he feels this motion is arbitrary. He feels this should be related to something more tangible, perhaps a three month water supply during the summer. Can studies be conducted to determine a number that is not arbitrary? A board member stated he is going to support the recommended motion since it relates to the issue of storage and perhaps this issue will be made visible to City Council. Vote on the motion: 3 for (Gessler, Balderson, and Brunswig), 5 against (Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, and Malers) The motion does not carry. Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, and Malers cited the cost to change the model as their primary reason for voting against the motion. A board member asked if it is possible to make Council aware of the fact that a large portion of the Water Board voted less on policy substance than on where the policy is relating to the Halligan EIS process. He feels this information would be helpful for Council to know when making their decision. Chairperson Janett stated that for the purpose of a memo to Council, there was support from multiple board members for lowering the planning demand number and support for consideration of 1-in-40 year drought criteria; however, due to the cost of changing the Halligan EIS process, the board voted against the motions. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. * Board Member Bovee departed the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Proposed Nutrient Control Limitations (Attachments available upon request). Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager Carol Webb introduced the item and introduced Special Projects Manager Link Mueller. There are several components of the regulations; however, this item is presented as an update on the nutrient control limitations. Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board prepare a letter of support to City Council for the draft policy incorporating comments made during the board meeting with assistance as needed from staff and consider it for approval by the board at its December meeting. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 11 Ms. Webb presented the parameter limitations for total phosphorus and total inorganic nitrogen from the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). The 95 th percentile limitation is to prevent facilities from turning off their nutrient treatment in order to reduce costs. Board discussion: Is the state taking comments on the limitations? No, they are not currently taking comments. They have taken comments up to this point. Ms. Webb presented information on the proposed alternate proposal for Regulation 85. The numbers presented are from a technical engineering work group. Ms. Webb presented the timeline for the regulations. It is still possible to submit an alternate proposal. The proponents prehearing statements are due December 14, 2011. The responsive prehearing statements are due January 18, 2012. The nutrient rulemaking hearing is scheduled for March 2012. The current permit expires on November 30, 2013. The City will have to comply at this time or compliance will be based on a schedule. Mr. Mueller presented information on the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) construction timeline. The Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) was designed for the Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) process. It was also designed to allow for expansion in case of more stringent nutrient removal. Construction will be started in November 2011 with completion scheduled for October 2012. Board discussion: Are the two projects at Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) in the budget? The Drake WRF North Trains project is in the budget. The Drake WRF South Trains project will be in the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Where are other states in regard to nutrients? Ms. Webb stated that other states are in different stages of the process. Colorado is the first state to propose a statewide controlled regulation. Ms. Webb stated that the construction timeline only addresses Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR). It does not address Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) or chemical additions. Source Watershed Monitoring Program 2011 Highlights (Attachments available upon request). Water Production Manager Lisa Voytko introduced the item and Watershed Specialist Jill Oropeza. Ms. Oropeza presented a map showing the shared watersheds (Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT), Upper Main Stem Cache la Poudre, and North Fork Cache la Poudre). She presented information on the water quality monitoring objectives, including the existing water quality and how does it impact treatment, what are the trends, what are the human and environmental sources of pollution, and what can we do in our watersheds to improve the water quality. Information was also presented on the monitoring programs. More information is available on www.fcgov.com. She also presented information on the record snowpack and water quality implications. The peak discharge was of similar magnitude to the previous year. There were no significant impacts during the spring runoff. Water Board Minutes November 17, 2011 12 Information was presented on Total Organic Carbon (TOC). TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir increased abruptly in 2010 and 2011. Treatment operations were able to minimize the effect of these increases through source water blending while inconsistently meeting all regulations for TOC removal. Board discussion: Does the increase relate to the wildfires that have occurred within the last few years? Ms. Oropeza stated the increase is related to the bigger loads of high TOC waters that come from the spring runoff. Ms. Voytko stated that the Poudre River has a higher proportion of TOC during runoff. During these times, the water can be blended with water from Horsetooth Reservoir. What are the blending ratios? Ms. Voytko stated the blending ratios change seasonally. Ms. Oropeza presented information on geosmin, which is a naturally occurring compound produced by some species of blue-green algae. Geosmin is difficult to remove during water treatment. There were no elevated geosmin concentrations above the 4 ng/L odor threshold in raw Horsetooth Reservoir or Poudre River water supplies in 2011. Geosmin concentrations peak in late summer or early fall in Horsetooth Reservoir, and peak during the winter months in the Poudre River. She presented information on the Big Thompson Watershed Wildfire Assessment. This assessment was completed by J.W. Associates on behalf of the Cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland, as well as Northern Water. Hazardous watershed conditions were evaluated based on wildfire hazard, flooding or debris flow hazard, soil erodibility, and water supply. She presented information on the Northern Water Emerging Contaminants Study. This is a collaborative study managed by Northern Water and supported by 11 entities, including the City of Fort Collins. Sampling began in 2008 and has expanded to 22 sites. Key locations include Horsetooth Reservoir, the Mainstem Poudre River, and the North Fork Poudre River. The study looked at five classes of contaminants. Ms. Oropeza noted that Horsetooth Reservoir is affected by upstream waster water effluent and recreational activities. The Poudre River is affected only by recreational activities. Information was also presented on the detected compounds and their levels in Horsetooth Reservoir and the Poudre River. All compounds were presented at levels no greater than nanograms per liter (ng/L). She stated that there are no expected health effects from these concentration levels. Board discussion: Chairperson Janett stated the Community Working Group wanted the excellent water quality and taste mentioned in the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. Is blending factored in the modeling for the policy? Mr. Dustin stated blending is not taken into account in the modeling. Finalize 2012 Annual Work Plan (Attachments available upon request). Chairperson Janett requested that “citywide” be changed to “Utility” on Item #2 in the Engineering Committee section. This will be revised. Proposed 2012 Meeting Schedule Board Secretary Harriet Davis provided the proposed 2012 meeting schedule for the agenda packet. Committee Reports Conservation and Public Education Committee (Board Member Phelan,): No report. Engineering Committee (Board Member Baiderson,): No report. Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee (Board Member Goldhach,): Committee Chairperson Goldbach encouraged the board to attend the next meeting on November 22, 2011. City Lobbyist Tess Heffernan is scheduled to attend the meeting. Dr. Larry Roesner and Dr. Sybil Sharvelle from Colorado State University are also scheduled to attend to discuss Gray Water Studies. Water Supply Committee (Board Member Gessler,): No report. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode provided this report for the agenda packet. Other Business Amenclment to Water Sales Agreemeni for Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCL WD) Ms. Voytko presented information on this item. FCLWD has approached the City of Fort Collins in regards to connecting to a 30 inch main on Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. FCLWD already has two agreements with the City. This particular connection does not fall under the terms of those agreements. A new agreement is needed. This item will be presented to the Water Board in 20 12. This item will require Council approval. Board discussion. Why does FCL WD need/his connection? Ms. Voytko stated they will be serving retail customers to the east of Interstate 25. This is the most efficient method for them. Is there any opportunity/or the City to benefit from this agreement? Ms. Voytko stated this agreement can hopefully be used with other entities. The current agreements do not currently address this. Will the water come from the City ofFort Collins wa/er supply? Mr. Bode stated the source would likely be CBT water provided by FCLWD. Future Agenda Items None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on iD.L. O , 2011 Signed: - Board Secretary d / / Date Water Board Minutes 13 November 17, 2011