Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/19/1996i C� WATER BOARD MINUTES July 19,1996 3:00 - 4:50 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON Charles Wanner WATER BOARD PRESIDENT Paul Clopper - Phone: W 221-5556 H 226-3377 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - Phone: W 221-6681 H 493-2522 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, President; John Bartholow, Vice President, Dave Lauer, Terry Podmore, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Steve Comstock, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Bob Smith, Director Stormwater Utility George Reed, Chairman Storm Drainage Board John Barnett, Randy Fischer, Storm Drainage Board Members MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, Tom Sanders, Robert Ward President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of June 21, 1996 be approved as distributed. Dave Lauer seconded the motion. Terry Podmore noted a correction on p. 4, paragraph 5, the second sentence. "The sentence is a quote, but there was no end on that quote," he said. On p. 12, third complete paragraph "prospective" should be changed to "perspective" in two places. John Bigham pointed out on page 3, at the top of the page, $1.50 should be changed to 50 cents an acre foot for the power interference charge. The minutes were approved unanimously as corrected. Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 2 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT UPDATE John Bigham began by saying that "it's been a strange year for water!" Lake Granby is still at 99% of active capacity; it's only 7/10 of a foot from being full, and there is still pretty good inflow, he reported. "There is no longer any spill; it actually stopped on July 13th. We are delivering very little water," he added. "However, Lake Granby, Willow Creek and the bypass and spill in there amounted to 122,552 Ac-ft that we were not able to capture, so there ought to be plenty of water to fill part of the big reservoirs downstream where flushing flows were released earlier in the year. He said that Carter Lake is down 41 feet, but is still 60.2% of active capacity. "As we look at records we've kept over a period of time, it's exactly where it would be if we had a normal year," he related. The local storage is nearly full; the CBT system is at 93%, "so we have good storage in total. Obviously Carter Lake is the lowest point. The Bureau's reconstruction at the Flatiron pumping station is still on target, he continued. It should be back in operation by the first of September. The District has delivered 11,000 ac-ft of quota water this year which leaves approximately 150,000 ac-ft of quota water to be delivered. Obviously there is going to be an enormous amount of carryover to go back into the system which will be re-evaluated when the quota is determined next year. "It's been a good year in general," he said. The crops look quite good unless they were damaged by hail. Terry Podmore asked about the bypass. "We are still working on that," Mr. Bigham said. As he understands, the preliminary engineering cost estimates on that will be presented to the District Board soon. At that point the Board will determine whether to move ahead. It doesn't appear, at this point, that the power people are interested in a generator, but the bypass is still needed. CHARTER REVIEW ITEM: CONTROL OF WATER Background information on this item was included in Board packets. Dennis Bode reported that a citizen committee is currently reviewing provisions in the City Charter for possible revision. Last fall Utility staff identified Article XII, Section 4, of the charter regarding the "control of water" as being an area that needs review. Several questions have arisen in the past regarding the rental of the City's raw water supply that is in excess of that needed to meet the City's treated water needs. Staff believes that several changes to the charter would reduce the ambiguity of the present language and allow the City to make use of its raw water supplies more effectively and efficiently. Mr. Bode explained that the current language was apparently written prior to the 1950's when the City relied primarily on a few direct flow water rights on the Poudre River. The City Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 3 probably had little opportunity or need to rent raw water to users other than its treated water customers. "Now with a number of different sources of water, the City regularly rents raw water to various groups of users." Mr. Bode mentioned that the Water Supply Committee met last week to discuss this item. He asked the Committee members to comment any time as he presented the major points. He reiterated that as one looks at the language in the Charter, it seems that it doesn't apply very well to the raw water and the different kinds of uses that the City makes of that water today. "This was an opportunity to clarify some of the language," he said. "We've had some difficulties in the past interpreting how we should allocate uses of raw water," he pointed out. Staff has included three main questions that are outlined in the agenda item summary: Is it necessary or desirable that the City Council set rental rates for the City's raw water supplies? Mr. Bode explained that in the past staff has brought proposed rates to the Water Board who then made recommendations for formal approval by the Council. "We didn't find any municipality in this area that sets the rates that way," he said. All the cities appear to have a less formal process. Staff is thinking, because of the fluctuation in the prices of raw water during the season, that it might be more efficient and effective to have a little more flexibility in the way the prices are set. Existing Situation: The Charter currently provides that the City may permit the use of surplus water at "such rates as the Council may prescribe." Possible Chafe: Revise the Charter so that rental rates for surplus water do not need City Council approval. Rationale: Prevailing market prices for rental water fluctuate widely because of rapidly changing weather conditions. In order to quickly react to market conditions, the Utility needs the ability to adjust rental rates accordingly. Rental rates for most communities in this area are set at the utility level and do not require council approval. 2. Can some of the language regarding surplus water and its use inside and outside the City be made clearer? "The way the City Charter reads it sounds like if we have any surplus water, we can lease it only to customers outside the City," Mr. Bode related. "Certainly there are times when we have opportunities to lease water to people inside the City." He thinks that in some ways it Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 4 would be desirable to completely get away from the idea of surplus water and perhaps talk more about treated water and raw water. However, we should recognize that the City must meet its needs first prior to renting water to other users. He acknowledged that it sometimes gets a bit tricky to determine what the City's use is. "I think it's pretty clear that treated water is certainly a priority in terms of use of water," he stressed. "Some might say if it's outside the City, it may be a lower priority." He pointed out that we have other uses for raw water such as parks, homeowners associations, school districts, etc. He admits that it's not very clear if there should be a priority of use in what we call surplus and what we don't. Existing Situation: The Charter refers to "the use of such surplus water by consumers outside the City." Possible Chanee: Delete reference to "consumers outside the City," or include, "consumers inside the City." Rationale: The existing language is ambiguous. The Utility often has people inside the City boundaries other than the Utility's treated water customers, who desire to rent raw water. Current language needs to be clarified so it is not interpreted to exclude people inside the City from renting surplus water. 3. Can some of the language be clarified so that the Utility can more efficiently and effectively rent raw water to various users? Existing Situation: In regard to the use of City water, the Charter states, "neither shall such use confer upon any user a right to water superior to the right of any other user." Mr. Bode said that language is interpreted differently by nearly everybody who reads it. "I think it's important for the Utility or perhaps the City Council to be able to use some discretion in who they would cut off, or not serve water to or rent to in cases of shortage," he said. "This language almost implies that no user will have a superior right to use water over anybody else. I think some of that can be cleared up." Possible Change: Revise to clarify the intent of this language in a way that does not unduly restrict the Utility from renting water to its rental customers. Rationale: Present interpretation of this language is that no preference be given one renter over another renter. In times when rental requests exceed the amount of surplus water available to rent, the Utility uses a random allocation procedure so there is no preference given to previous customers, and this reduces the Utility's flexibility and efficiency in renting its surplus water. Also, the City has entered into some "leaseback agreements" when Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 5 acquiring new water supplies. Clarification of the Charter language as it relates to this practice would be desirable. Mr. Bode had worked with John Duval from the City Attorney's Office, on some revised language for the Charter as follows: Section 4. Control of Water. The use of water belonging to the City, or the use of its water system, whether for domestic or industrial use, or for use in connection with a franchise or other privilege granted by the City, shall always be subject to the most comprehensive scrutiny, management, and control by the City, and nothing shall ever be done by a user which shall interfere with the successful operation of the waterworks or tend to interfere with the complete performance of the trust for the people under which such waterworks are held by the City; and such use shall not confer upon any user any vested right. Section 6. Municipal utility rates and finances. The Council shall by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for treated water and electricity, and for other utility services furnished by the City...... Section 7. Rental of raw water If the City Manager determines at any time that the City's supply of raw water is greater than that needed by the City to supply treated water to its water utility customers and to satisfy its own direct needs for raw water, then the City Manager may rent any such additional raw water to consumers at rates that consider competitive market prices, supply and demand conditions, and cost to the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Water Board make a recommendation providing general guidance to the charter review committee and City Council. Recommendations along the following lines are suggested: Revisions to the City Charter should accomplish the following: Allow the City Manager to set rental rates for raw water in order to provide the flexibility to efficiently and effectively react to changing market conditions for raw water. 2. Delete references to "the use of surplus water by consumers outside the City" so as to not unduly restrict the Utility from renting raw water to various consumers, both inside and outside the City. Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 6 Revise or delete language regarding "a right to water superior to the right of any other user" so as not to unduly restrict the Utility or the City Council from making a determination as to who should get water during periods of shortage. Mr. Bode asked if there were any questions or comments. Terry Podmore asked if the City Council has indicated any preference as to whether they or the Board should set rental rates. "I'm not aware that they have expressed a preference," Mr. Bode replied. "Have they always followed the Board's recommendation?" Mr. Podmore continued. "Occasionally they ask questions, but they have followed the recommendation," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Podmore also asked if the Council would go along with the change to allow the City Manager to set the rates. "They probably would, but we don't know for sure," Mr. Smith answered. Mr. Bode mentioned that in terms of process, there is a charter review committee that is reviewing all the issues regarding the charter. They will make recommendations to the Council. Tom Brown remarked that, in any case, this change wouldn't preclude the Council from saying "we want to set the rates; it just says that they don't have to set the rate. Mr. Clopper asked if the Water Supply Committee was in agreement with these changes. "We were in agreement basically with the changes," Mr. Brown reported. He indicated that the first and last revisions essentially increase flexibility and ease of management. The gist of the one that talks about superior rights is to increase the flexibility of the management of the water. This takes the somewhat confusing language out of the charter. The middle change simply cleans up some language. After about an hour of discussion, the Committee basically agreed with the intent, he concluded. John Bartholow, one of the committee members, said that "the only discomfort was about the wording, and Dave Frick in particular wanted to make sure the lawyers had carefully thought this out, because some of the words may still be somewhat ambiguous." Dave Frick said the committee was trying to envision how interruptible contracts with farmers in the future for drought supplies, for example, might be interpreted. "We wanted to make sure that we have wording that would be interpreted the same in the future, and yet be flexible enough to allow us to look at some more unique options for dealing with water," he explained. Mr. Clopper referred to the provision, regarding superior water rights, that was deleted entirely. "Removing that seemed to clarify it for me," he said. Mr. Podmore asked if the City has a policy for outlining how those water supplies are going to be determined during a period of shortages. "There is not an adopted Council policy," Mr. Smith stated, "but Council will determine that list." Mr. Bartholow thinks that Mr. Podmore makes a good point. "I think what's proposed here takes care of this problem, but how would we determine who gets water in a period of shortage," Mr. Podmore wonders. Mr. Smith explained that the general Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 7 procedure in an emergency in the summer is to restrict all irrigation first and that's as far as it goes. "Is everyone who gets irrigation water cut off equally?" Mr. Podmore asked. "All lawn irrigation would be restricted," Mr. Smith clarified. Mr. Podmore was thinking particularly about agricultural irrigation. "If it's a water supply problem versus a distribution/transmission or treatment problem, obviously Dennis Bode and his staff would make sure we have water," Mr. Smith assured the Board. "They make very sure we have enough treated water supply before we rent raw water," he stressed. "If it's a matter of getting treated water to our customers, lawn irrigation is the first to be restricted. The City Council or City Manager then must determine what business use will be," he added. "In a case where there is not a drastic shortage, and the City has enough to satisfy its needs, but we don't have enough to go around for all the rental market, isn't a lottery procedure used?" Mr. Clopper inquired. "Yes," Mr. Bode replied. "There have been different methods used in the past, however. A few years ago there were some concerns raised specifically about the language referring to superior rights." There was an interpretation made at that time that said just because someone rented water the previous year, wouldn't necessarily give him first rights to get it in the current year. "We have gone to a system where, if we have more requests than we have shares to rent, we have gone to a lottery system," he explained. "That works fairly well," he said, but he admitted that there are pros and cons of doing it that way. There are some farmers who have rented water in the past, who have difficulty understanding why someone who just acquired a farm, gets water and they don't. Mr. Brown pointed out that what this proposed change does is take the decision out of the Charter, and make it a decision that, for example, the Board would consider. The "superior" language in the Charter was one of the reasons that the lottery was enacted. Before that, previous users had priority. "Taking this language out of there puts it back on the table, essentially; it doesn't make it a fixed item in the Charter. It doesn't mean that we wouldn't continue to use a lottery; that's one option," he added. Mr. Frick also pointed out that if we were to buy some water supplies in the future that had a permanent lease -back to farmers, except in drought years, we could have that interruptible at that point. "That would be something long term and would still be allowed with this new wording," he said. Mr. Smith reiterated that when this term was put in the Charter initially, the City didn't even rent water. Mr. Clopper called for a motion. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend to the Charter Committee and City Council that changes be made to the Charter which will accomplish the three items noted in the staff recommendation. John Bartholow seconded the motion. Howard Goldman asked if the impetus for the change is coming from the Utility's problem in dealing with consumers as opposed to some ambiguity in the language. Has a lawyer reviewed your Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 8 proposed language? Mr. Smith assured Mr. Goldman that the City attorneys have looked at the proposed language. "The problem came initially from the attorneys reading this language and saying that it applied to rental water as well as treated water." "All it says in the first paragraph is usage of surplus water," Mr. Goldman pointed out. "That to me is where the ambiguity lies," he contends. Mr. Smith said that staff believed at the time that this meant treated water outside City limits; but the attorneys believed it applied to raw water as well. Mr. Goldman wondered how inserting vested rights instead of superior rights changes lottery supplies. Mr. Bode said the attorneys thought it was still important somehow to say in the Charter that any use by other consumers does not mean that they get some kind of a permanent right for future use; so they distinguished between that language and the wording that mentions "superior" rights. They see superior rights as kind of a priority system, whereas the vested right language they say just makes it clear to the consumers that the City continues to own the water and the water rights. "It doesn't really change, from year to year, the way rental water will be allocated," Mr. Goldman believes. "I think, as Tom Brown mentioned, that it provides an option for adopting different ways of allocating the water," Mr. Bode responded." I think the attorneys felt comfortable with saying a vested right doesn't limit us from coming up with different allocation methods, which may mean you give preference to people who rented it previously, where the other language is definitely a preference issue," Mr. Smith explained. "That's if you read superior as a common use of the word," Mr. Goldman insisted. "I don't understand why attorneys would have trouble with that, because superior to the rights of others in water law seems to me to be really clear," he asserted. "I don't understand why vested rights would provide that much more clarity." Mr. Podmore argued that then you could say all users are equal but they have rights, and what we are saying is they don't have rights. Mr. Goldman, who is an attorney himself, still didn't see how this change will solve the problem. Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Goldman discuss this with Assistant City Attorney John Duval. Mr. Goldman agreed that it might be helpful. Mr. Smith also felt that it might be helpful for Mr. Duval to hear Mr. Goldman's point of view. Mr. Clopper referred to recommendation No. 1 on page three. He suggested that it might be helpful to provide some kind of indexing method for prices on these rates. "We did talk about that indirectly at the Water Supply Committee meeting, but that's a different issue than the change in the Charter," Mr. Bartholow responded. Mr. Clopper was specifically thinking in terms of policy guidance. "I don't think we want to get too specific in the Charter," Mr. Bode replied, but he thinks staff would like some internal guidance so they are not out on a limb in terms of juggling the prices to suit everybody who calls on the telephone. He thinks it is important to have, at least at the Utility level, "a process that we go through before we change the prices." Mr. Clopper called for the question. The vote was unanimous in favor of recommending that the proposed changes to the Charter be accepted as recommended by staff. Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 9 POSSIBILITY OF REDIRECTING TREATED EFFLUENT FROM DWRF INTO POUDRE RIVER This item is the result of a letter to the Board from David Lauer. Most of the letter is quoted below: At our April meeting we had a discussion on the proposed regional wastewater treatment plant west of Windsor. In expanding on Gale McGaha Miller's explanation about where treated wastewater from that facility may go, Mike Smith pointed out that all treated water from the present Drake Water Reclamation Facility now goes into the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch. Mr. Smith explained that the local Water Commissioner preferred to have this water go into the Fossil Creek Reservoir in order to "manage it better." When asked by Robert Ward if there were not water quality problems in the reservoir, Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative. "Our plans are that we will have the facilities designed so that we can discharge 100% into the River. Discharging to reservoirs is tricky business," Mr. Smith said. According to Mr. Smith, we could also discharge treated wastewater into the river if we so desired. I think it's important that we consider a change in current policy to allow some (perhaps half or more) of Fort Collins treated wastewater back into the River after going through the Drake Facility. These are some questions the Board and its staff should consider: Would discharging treated wastewater into the Poudre River have a more cleansing effect on that water without any adverse effect to the River or to downstream usage? Would increased flows during certain seasons have a beneficial effect on downstream ecosystems? Would it not take pressure off Fossil Creek Reservoir's increasing eutrophication? Responses to David Lauer's points from the final paragraph above were the subject of the discussion on this item. Mike Smith introduced the item by saying said that there wouldn't be a formal presentation. Steve Comstock, Water Reclamation Manager and Dennis Bode, Water Resources and Planning Manager will address some issues and answer questions, he said. Mr. Smith explained that there are basically two issues involved here: one is the water rights issue which brings in Mr. Lauer's question about the Water Commissioner. Dennis Bode will talk about that. The other issue is whether we discharge into Fossil Creek or the River for treatment and monitoring purposes which Steve Comstock will address. Dennis Bode said he talked with Shawn Hoff, the Water Commissioner, about the management of the River in that area. He said the practice of doing it that way began about 20 years ago with Jack Neutze, the former Water Commissioner. "It was primarily a management issue." By allowing the water to flow down to Fossil Creek Reservoir it provided a means of regulating some of the flows on the lower River. At times the water could be stored in there and released to meet senior demands downstream, or to even keep calls off the River in certain locations. Mr. Hoff says that he doesn't Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 10 believe that there is any state requirement as to where the water should go; "in other words, we could chose to go to the River or the inlet." In his operation he finds it much easier to manage the water when it goes into the inlet and through Fossil Creek Reservoir. Mr. Hoff also pointed out that he is aware of the other sources of water that go into the reservoir which account for some of the pollution. He wanted to make sure that we were aware of that. "He wasn't so sure that our water going in there would make that much difference, but he's not a water quality expert," Mr. Bode acknowledged. Mr. Bode went on to say that the other thing that might be important in looking at this, is that some of the flows from the River are diverted through that way too, so flows from the wastewater treatment facility probably make up about a third of the flows. "That may have some bearing on the quality on an annual basis." Most of that is in May, June and July when there are flows in the River available. "But for a portion of the year, it could be that the effluent is a major input to the Reservoir," Mr. Bartholow observed. "That's true," Mr. Bode replied. "During the late fall and winter that's right." "Is some of that 2/3 that isn't from Drake, raw water?" Mr. Lauer asked. "It would all be from the Poudre," Mr. Bode answered. "It would also include some water that is released from our Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility." Steve Comstock added that some of it is runoff from golf courses, etc., so there is quite a lot of potential for pollution. Also South Fort Collins Sanitation District has what is now a 4 or 5 mgd facility that discharges about 2 or 3 mgd all the time. Their facility is located close to the reservoir site. Mr. Bode also mentioned, in terms of water rights, that Thornton has a diversion point for their conditional water right at the River and I-25. There may be some future implications about how that is operated in terms of what they might be able to take from the River at that location, or take it under an exchange where they basically exchange from South Platte and take that water from that point. "This is something we may want to keep in mind in considering this question." Mr. Smith said that the Utility wants to try to maintain the flexibility to have both options. The water rights issue, although it is not a legal issue, is very sensitive in terns of Fort Collins being seen as anti -this and that, and for water management. This is an intensive water management scheme that people really rely on, he said. "We have to be careful that we live up to what we say we are doing," he stressed. He acknowledged that the Utility may eventually find it necessary to go to the River. Thus, having flexibility is good for the Utility. "If Fossil Creek becomes a problem and if it has to be classified, we will have the option to go to the River," he said. South Fort Collins has no other options and there are no other choices for stormwater runoff. Fossil Creek has a huge drainage basin, so there is considerable potential for contamination. Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page I 1 "One thing is interesting with regard to regulations," Steve Comstock began. "Right now the state is pushing everybody for the conversion of ammonia to nitrate. In doing so, of course the nitrogen becomes more biologically available as a nutrient for algae. It's still not the limiting factor; probably phosphorous is the limiting algal nutrient factor at the reservoir. Lake Dillon is probably a good example of that phenomenon. In order to limit phosphorous there, wastewater flows are subject to effluent limitations as low as .17 mg/L. This requires using alum as well as filters to try to control phosphorous. "It's a very intensive process," he emphasized. He said that with the other sources at Fossil Creek, the City could probably go away entirely, and the reservoir would continue to experience problems." . It takes very low levels of phosphorous to trigger algae blooms. He went on to say that, from an operational standpoint, for the Utility to change discharge points isn't very significant. "We would be forced, under our current permit, to go to chronic W.E.T. (whole effluent toxicity) testing," he said. "Right now we do it only as an acute test. It is important to understand, from a regulation standpoint, that we take on a great deal more responsibility and liability by going to the Poudre River. It is a far more fragile environment. There are limits on chlorine, copper, silver, mercury, and metals testing would be required. We would increase our test load by 423 analyses per year. That doesn't really increase the cost because we are already staffed, in theory, to go to the River. "As far as our process at the wastewater treatment plant, our policy has always been to treat as well as we possibly can," he assured the Board. "Right now we wouldn't have to make any changes to go to the River, but it would just put us a little more at risk from any kind of mechanical failure, or something like that." "Why would there be more stringent testing?" Dave Lauer wondered. Our permit is designed to protect the designated uses of two different receiving streams. The effluent limitations for discharge to the River are designed to protect aquatic life and recreational classifications. That is why there are metals limitations for the River discharge. The ditch has no aquatic life or recreational component to it, so effluent limitations for discharge to the ditch are much less stringent. Monitoring frequency is also less for discharge to the ditch than to the River for the same reason. This applies to metals, chlorine, ammonia, and fecal coliforms. Mr. Lauer asked if limitations were less stringent in the ditch even though it's an indirect flow back to the River, "That's right," Mr. Comstock replied. He added that it has to do with the allocation loadings in the River and the sensitivity in the River, and that changes with the ditch and reservoir scenario. "That goes along with Mr. Lauer's cleansing of the water scenario," Mr. Comstock continued. He said that perhaps the River has the potential to bring the oxygen up a little more quickly than the ditch, but it still runs a couple of miles of the ditch before it reaches the reservoir. "I think inevitably, in my opinion, using the River would tend to degrade its quality in general. As well as our plants do, they don't process raw water," he stressed. Mr. Smith explained that the State says "it's okay with them if we put these loadings in the River, but not putting it in there, makes the River better." Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Comstock related that the plant discharged to the River for a couple of days in 1987, but prior to that they haven't gone extensively to the River since 1983 or 84. "We did that for about 190 days; that was the year the flood hit. The last time we went to the River was when some work was being done on the Fossil Creek Ditch." He remarked that the River's ecosystem has to be pretty flexible. "I can't imagine that extra flow in there would hurt it too badly," he said, "but it's hard to tell," he added. The last, and perhaps the most important point, is that "our facility is not designed to do both; it's designed to discharge one or the other," he said. "The way our outflow works, we don't actually have a way to measure it, so it causes us headaches from a regulatory standpoint. He explained that the way the outflow works is you actually raise a gate, and by raising the gate, you stop up the flow and that creates enough head to push it into the pipe below that discharges it to the River. "You re limited on the split you can make by the amount of head, " he stressed. Mr. Lauer asked what kind of structural change would be required in order to allow you to monitor the split. "I think that's kind of difficult to say," Mr. Comstock responded. "We would have to come in with a scenario for flow monitoring and redo that diversion structure," he said. "It comes out roughly at the swinging bridge at the Environmental Learning Center, and that might be another sensitive issue in the future. Often times outflows can be foamy even though the water is clear. It could be tricky, but I think there are some pros. One is that it gets us out of the complicity of Fossil Creek Reservoir. "If it's going to make a difference. Dennis Bode was saying he wasn't sure," Mr. Lauer pointed out. "At least that way someone calls it in. We aren't even discharging to it, so we're out of that issue; that may be one of the pros. "Isn't that one of the reasons that you have to keep moving the channel back over there when it flows out?" Dave Frick asked. "We haven't had to deal with that because we haven't discharged during the time we've had that thing blown out. We repaired that again this year, and we have the River back in its channel," Mr. Comstock responded, "but that would make it even more important certainly at that time of year." He added that it really takes a little river modeling. "I think everyone is aware that wastewater will recover in the River, it just takes some time. The other question is how is the River recovered from the Mulberry Facility by the time we put more from Drake into it? I think we have some data on that, but I don't have that for you today," he said. He said there is a lot of speculation out there about what is best. Mr. Clopper asked what the next diversion downstream is from Fossil Creek. "New Cache's Greeley No. 2," Mr. Bode replied, "at least until Thornton builds their pump station there." Mr. Smith suspects that if Thornton builds their pump station, they would want to force the River Commissioner to keep the water in the River. Mr. Bode recalled that in the Southside Ditch case, releasing it there was something Thornton wanted the City to do, but the City resisted in agreeing to that. One of the other issues that Mr. Comstock thinks is important in terms of operation, is that the River is fragile. "Frankly, we are in a scenario right now where, if we ever get a spill, there is at least a Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 13 potential for containing the stuff in Fossil Creek. (What you would do with it then, I'm not sure.) If you discharge it into the River, it would be very serious; it would be in the next county very quickly." He said that the Drake Facility has seen some elevated copper levels in the effluent. "I think that's another issue that I don't know if it will be a problem. It's difficult to trace. We have been working with the water treatment folks; we have been working with them diligently on corrosion control. Sometimes it depends on the process that you are going through to fully nitrify the facility. Mr. Bartholow asked Mr. Comstock to point out on the map where the ditch enters Fossil Creek Reservoir. "Does the outflow from Fossil Creek end up largely on agricultural land or is it dumped back into the River, and does it go back above or below the proposed new wastewater treatment plant No. 3?" It goes back into the Poudre above the proposed plant, was the answer. Mr. Comstock pointed out that the Mulberry Facility was just put back on line, "and that pretty much comprises most of the flow in the River for a good portion of the year. The plan is to continue to catch as much as we can through the Mulberry Facility, so you will see an increase in flows to the River over time as the basin that Mulberry collects in grows. Our hope is to get that to baseline 6 mgd as soon as we can; right now I don't think we'll be able to get more than 4 or 4 1/2 on an average daily basis." Mike Smith summarized that David Lauer has asked some good questions, and "I think we need to be flexible and watch as we go along, and if we need to, make a move. I wouldn't recommend doing or excluding one or the other right now," he concluded. Mr. Clopper thanked Mr. Smith for making staff available to answer Mr. Lauer's and the Board's questions. Mr. Podmore asked if staff foresees the need to proportionately distribute to the River and Fossil Creek at some point. "I think what we will see in the future that will drive us to the River is the phosphorous limitation," Mr. Comstock replied, "and I think we will be seeing that within the next 10 years. The reason I say that is that we are negotiating a permit now for a 5-year period. We are not anticipating it in the first five years, probably in the second." Mr. Podmore asked what needs to be done, in terms of the ability to split the flow? "We aren't anticipating that now," Mr. Comstock replied. "It may be simpler than I think. We'll have the engineers take a look at it: measurements, samplings, etc.," he concluded. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 14 Dennis Bode reported that for the month of July the City's water use was 3,139 ac-ft. "That was about 93% of what we would expect for an average month," he said. "We had some well spaced precipitation which held off the demand," he added. The peak so far has been nearly 50 mgd in early July. "It's a little lower than we might have expected for the warm days we had in early July. So far we are running a little below average for July also. Dave Frick asked what the current treatment capacity is. It's about 74 mgd Mr. Bode replied. Financial Status Report Wendy Williams reported that the water use level has begun to climb, and with it revenue. Also PIFs are holding strong. "In the month of June, we processed 196 permits , which is the highest number we've ever processed," she said. "You don't see that reflected yet in the fees because most of the developers haven't paid. Some new fees went into effect on July first, so developers wanted to get in under the wire." She pointed out that they weren't Water Utility fees, although Utility PIFs are currently under review. COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply The water supply item was discussed earlier under the charter review discussion. Legislative and Finance The Legislative and Finance Committee didn't meet this month, but Wendy Williams announced that there is a need to schedule a meeting in August to review the 1997 Water and Wastewater Utility budget. Conservation and Public Education Terry Podmore said the Committee had not met. Mr. Podmore recalled that during the discussion of the proposed increase of the Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) at the May Board meeting, it was suggested that the Conservation and Public Education Committee schedule a joint meeting with the Legislative and Finance Committee to participate in the public education process. Wendy Williams explained that the Conservation and Public Education Committee will help with the public outreach process when changes in the PIFs are finalized. A proposed increase in the PIFs is still in the review and developmental stages, so there will be no need for a joint meeting at this time. Ms. Williams announced that Laurie D'Audney, Utility Education Specialist was recently hired to replace Water Conservation Specialist Jim Clark who resigned in March to take another position with the City. The new position will concentrate more on public education. Engineering No report Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 15 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY No report REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUE Mike Smith said there is nothing to report today. Perhaps at the August meeting Gale McGaha Miller will give us an update on the 201 study. OTHER BUSINESS Update on Combining Water Board and Storm Drainage Board Mike Smith reported that this item will be presented to the City Council probably the first meeting in September. The City attorneys are working on trying to amend the Code. The strategy is to eliminate both boards and create a new board, so there is no "I swallowed you effect," he said. "We will probably call it the Water Resources Advisory Board." He said that the plan is to combine the existing members of both boards, and through attrition over approximately four years, get down to 1 I members. He added that it's likely there won't be any outside appointments for several years. Paul Clopper pointed out that George Reed, the Chair of the Storm Drainage Board, attends Water Board meetings fairly regularly. He keeps the Water Board filled in, from time to time, on SD Board actions. He wondered if the SD board members here have had a chance to read WB minutes to get familiar with the discussions we've been having on combing the Boards. John Barnett and Randy Fischer both had received Water Board packets, their first ones. "Obviously, it's going to take us awhile to get up to speed on your issues," John Barnett said. Both boards have some pretty big projects going on. Bob Smith, from Stormwater, announced that Water Board members and staff are invited to attend the Storm Drainage Board annual field trip and picnic on August 8th. Invitations were handed out today. Water Utility staff and the Water Board have invited the Storm Drainage Board and staff on a tour of Joe Wright Reservoir and the Michigan Ditch on August 22nd. Those invitations were also included in the handouts. Molly Nortier announced that from now on, she will be providing packets for Storm Drainage Board members, and Shannon Gallegos, from Stormwater, will be providing packets for Water Board members. "We are starting to initiate some awareness education," Mr. Smith added, "assuming the Council approves the merger." Dave Frick pointed out that the Water Board is scheduled for a workshop on September 20th. "Maybe we could combine the boards and try to set some goals and directions for the new board," he suggested. "Our thinking is that if the merger passes on first reading in September, we could invite the SD Board, and change the format of the meeting somewhat," Mr. Smith stated. "We are keeping that option open." Letter from Loveland Water Board President Mr. Clopper received a letter from Darell Zimbelman, President of the Loveland Water Board. The Loveland Board, during a follow-up discussion of the recent joint meeting of the three boards, came Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 16 up with a suggestion that two or three members of each board attend the others' regular meetings on a consistent basis. They think that exposure to each other's meetings would enhance the flow of ideas among the boards, as well as "gain a deeper understanding of the issues each of us is dealing with." He asked Mr. Clopper to get reactions from our board on this suggestion. Mr. Clopper would like to prepare a response for Mr. Zimbelman. He asked for reactions to the idea and perhaps volunteers who would be interested in doing this. "I'm not suggesting that this be done on a monthly basis; perhaps 3 or 4 times a year, " he said. Mr. Podmore said it's a good idea, and asked if Mr. Clopper knows when their boards meet. Mr. Clopper said that Mr. Zimbelman didn't indicate that. David Lauer said that would be critical to some members' involvement. "I'm not suggesting that we decide on who should go today. I just wanted to get a sense of our Board's reactions to the idea, and get back to Mr. Zimbelman and Dick Boettcher from Greeley," Mr. Clopper responded. Mr. Reed said that should our boards be combined, he would be interested in going to Greeley's meetings. He has already attended a few of their meetings. He thinks their meetings are at Wednesday at 1:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon. Mr. Podmore reiterated that it is worth responding positively to the idea. John Bartholow commented that "if we have people who want to do it, that sounds great, otherwise we could perhaps rotate the participation so it doesn't become an onerous task." He said he would just as soon read their minutes. Mike Smith remarked, from a staff perspective, that "it's good to share information." Mr. Clopper asked staff to help him put together a letter of response. Comments Relating to Charter Review John Bartholow said that, in the context of the Charter Review, he wondered if there might be a gap in the assignment of the Water Utility such that, either the Natural Resources Dept. or the Water Utility could also supply water to the Poudre River. For example, a civic center gets built and there is a lot of focus on the River; and somebody wants to put more water in the River. "I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that may happen," he stressed. "Does the Water Utility have the prerogative to engage in trades, long term leases, or any other mechanism to supply water for that purpose, which would be different from treated and raw water for our customers?" he asked. "If we don't have that prerogative, and Natural Resources doesn't have that prerogative, I was wondering if somebody has it in their Charter to have that responsibility or that authority." "The Charter is probably silent on that," Mr. Smith responded. "Knowing City Attorney Steve Roy, if it's silent that's good." His philosophy is "don't say anything unless you want to make an exception." "The City could probably draw up a contract to do it or assign it to whoever they wanted to do it," he guessed. He said that the Utility could take on the responsibility to do that, but the City would have to come up with a funding mechanism. Mr. Bartholow said if Natural Resources were funded to do this or received a grant from GoCo, for example, to do something like this, and they wanted the Water Utility to handle the logistics so we could set up an interruptible supply contract, for instance, would that be possible? "There probably isn't anything that prevents us from doing that," Mr. Smith replied. i • Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 17 Mayor's Concern about Regional Water Supply Tom Brown wasn't able to be at the last Board meeting, but read in the minutes about the Mayor's concern about regional water supply, and preserving farmland. In the minutes it said, "It was suggested that Paul Clopper respond to the Mayor with regard to the article in the newspaper and ask her if she could use the Board's help." "I was wondering if you (Paul Clopper) had any interaction with her on that?" Mr. Brown asked. "I was going to make a suggestion at this meeting that we handle it in the form of suggesting to her that we would be happy to offer a liaison person from the Board, whether it would be myself or anyone else who is interested. Judging from her comments at the last meeting, I think Alison Adams may have an interest in serving as a liaison," Mr. Clopper responded. "Whatever group the Mayor may put together, we would at least have a person representing the Board who could report back to us," he said. He asked if that is the kind of approach the Board would like him to take in making a response to the Mayor. Mr. Smith thinks it's a good idea to address a letter to the Mayor with an offer to help, and the suggestion of a liaison is helpful. "I think it's important to offer support to the Mayor on this issue," he added. "That's a fine suggestion," Mr. Brown said, but he thinks the letter should be made more general. "She may decide eventually to involve the Water Board more directly than just sending a representative to something she creates." David Lauer thinks that, at some point, "we ought to be pro -active enough to suggest that there be members of her group who are also members of the Water Board; especially since it's going to be expanded to include Stormwater." In other words, he believes that it shouldn't be just sending one or two people to observe, but having some members of this group, possibly Alison Adams, as active participants. Mr. Clopper thinks there is no sense of urgency in getting back to the Mayor. John Barnett said that it appears from his reading of the Water Board minutes that it's possible that the Mayor is not as informed about some of the current activities that the Board and staff are involved with on a regional basis. "I think it would be effective to invite her to a meeting where that issue was on the agenda, and she has a chance to discuss her views with the entire Board," he suggested. There was general agreement with his suggestion. Mr. Clopper proposed that he and staff draft a letter and bring it to the Board for their review and suggestions. The Board generally agreed that it wasn't necessary to bring the letter back for their review. Mr. Clopper said that he and staff will prepare a letter and send it on to the Mayor; cc. to Board members. Tom Brown said the idea of inviting her to a meeting was excellent and should definitely be included in the letter. Terry Podmore recalled that in the discussion of this topic last month, it was mentioned that agricultural interests are no longer represented on the Water Board. "I wanted to make the point that the subject of agricultural uses of water is something that I follow and in which I have considerable interest," he said. He thinks this subject should also be included in the letter. Water Board Minutes July 19, 1996 Page 18 Ventura, California's Water Quality Annual Report Paul Clopper said that his parents, who live in Ventura, Calif. often send him water -related items from their home town. He brought an annual report which summarized the water quality testing results, etc. He said that Ventura has a population of 100,000, about the size of Fort Collins. He said that this report is sent to all the City's treated water customers. The City of Fort Collins prints all of this information quarterly and annually, but doesn't send it to it's customers. Someone mentioned that other California cities do this, so it may be a state requirement. Mr. Clopper thought staff might be interested in seeing Ventura's report. Water Treatment Master Plan Mike Smith reported that for the August meeting, staff hopes to have a presentation by CH2M Hill on the Water Treatment Master Plan. The plan is to videotape the session. Following the presentation, there will be a brief discussion of the 1997 Proposed Water & Wastewater Utility Budget. The executive summary will be sent in Water Board packets. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Water Boar Secretary