Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/19/1996J WATER BOARD MINUTES January 19,1996 3:00 - 4:57 p.m. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON Chuck Wanner WATER BOARD PRESIDENT Paul Clopper - Phone: W 223-5556 H 226-3377 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - Phone: W 221-6681 H 493-2522 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, President, John Bartholow, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Alison Adams, Howard Goldman, Robert Ward, Dave Frick, Tom Sanders, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode Ben Alexander GUESTS Chuck Wanner, City Council/Water Board Liaison Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: WELCOME TO COUNCIL LIAISON Mr. Clopper welcomed Council Liaison Chuck Wanner to the meeting. The Water Board was pleased to have the opportunity to meet Mr. Wanner and engage in a meaningful dialogue. MINUTES Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of December 15, 1995 be approved as distributed. Paul Clopper corrected two words on page 2: In paragraph 3 Dilly Tunnel should be Dille and in paragraph 6 fowl should be foul. After a second, the corrected minutes were approved unanimously. MEMBERS ABSENT Terry Podmore, David Lauer (excused) Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 2 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT UPDATE John Bigham began with an update on the Flatiron pump explosion. The motor and generator part should be removed today, he said, and when that is out the actual damage can be determined. There is a general belief that there was some kind of spiking of the power going into the plant, but until some tests are performed, we won't know. "We still expect it could be 20 weeks in repair and rewind, and, of course that is the source of water from out of Flatiron into Carter Lake," he said. There is currently about 200 cfs coming through the Adams Tunnel. Power is being generated in Flatiron from unit No. 1, and the 200 cfs is going north into Horsetooth Reservoir. It is hoped that Horsetooth will be full by the end of March, so unlike Carter Horsetooth will not have a problem. In a normal year 60-65,000 ac-ft is delivered south out of Carter. In a dry year 80,000 or slightly above may be delivered. There is about 85,000 ac-ft of active storage in Carter, so "we could be down to dead storage or close to that." The district is arranging to have some water run from the Left Hand drainage basin that could come into the canal that feeds into Boulder Reservoir and they could possibly put in another 3-6,000 ac-ft of water in Boulder Res., bring it to its full capacity, and "water we bring from there we don't have to release out of Carter down the canal system," he explained. "That should meet our demands on the south. The long range meteorological predictions show that through March we will be about 2 degrees above normal in temperatures, and about 70% of normal precipitation. Usually the heaviest precipitation is in March, April and May, but it's much too early to anticipate what that might be. "We actually think we will be able to supply the water that is necessary at both ends." One difficulty might be if there were a number of people from the north end wanting to transfer water to the south end; there would be no way to transfer it and get it into Carter. The water shed on the upper Colorado, Granby and that area, is about 107% of normal; the South Platte is at 142% "so we're in good shape there," he said. From the standpoint of legislation, there are a great many bills that the District and other water - related entities will be following this coming session. One amendment proposal to the Constitution is the election of directors for water conservancy districts. "It could be troubling to the districts because it changes the way directors are selected (they are currently appointed by water court judges)," he related. Special districts are under Title 32, and conservancy districts are under Title 37. The proposal was to take the statutes, which are in section 19, out of the special districts and insert them into the language under conservancy districts. A number of items don't correlate; obviously something would have to be worked out between the two different titles. "There are 48 conservancy districts in Colorado, so it will affect the budgeting process and will have a fiscal impact on all of them, if this bill passes," he said. He concluded that there are a number of proposed bills which could affect water and water projects that the District and other water entities will be watching. E Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 3 "Where would the Left Hand ditch water normally have gone?" John Bartholow asked. "Normally they would have stored that water in their own system, and brought their reservoirs to capacity, then it would have gone into the natural stream flows," Mr. Bigham replied. With the potential of an average or above average snow pack, they won't have any trouble filling; plus everyone has a 50% carryover quota this year, he added. "Does that mean there could most likely be a significant surplus in Northern Colorado?" Mr. Bartholow continued. "That possibility exists," Mr. Bigham responded. Paul Clopper asked if Mr. Bigham had anything new to share with the Board on the CBT limitations. "I don't have anything new to report," Mr. Bigham answered. Howard Goldman referred to an item under Legal Matters in the District minutes from November 10, 1995 on page 10, the final paragraph and the first paragraph on p. 11. The District's attorney, Mr. Hobbs had sent a letter to the Boulder County Attorney about Mr. Mayhoffer, who apparently was not interested in negotiating a financially acceptable settlement on his property, and had proposed that the SWSP pipeline alignment be revised to avoid his property. The minutes stated that "unfortunately a condemnation hearing will likely be necessary" but they concluded by saying that District staff and counsel will attempt to reach an agreeable settlement with Mr. Mayhoffer. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the language in trying to deal with a problem with the landowner in this situation is "classic." There has been a disagreement and there has obviously been some discussion and maybe even some negotiations and letters, and now they are going to resort to a court process because someone is not being reasonable. "There is a whole other way to deal with this," Mr. Goldman insisted, "in the form of a cooperative dispute resolution process." STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for December water use was 94% of what was projected. For the year "we ended up using 24,763 ac-ft which was 87% of what we had projected, and that was primarily because of the heavy rainfall during the spring and summer." He referred to the graph that members received in their packets, which showed what the year looked like in terms of use and the projected use. Financial Status Report Four graphs were included in the packets which gave a summary of the operating revenue and PIF revenue for the last year. Wendy Williams reported that revenue was down a bit from what had been anticipated. In terms of operating revenue, PIFs were down a little from last year, but last year was a particularly good year for PIFs. "There was still a lot of activity, but not quite as much," she said. Robert Ward wondered if this decrease in revenue was because water use was only 87% of what was projected. Mr. Bode said that the 87% would affect the O&M revenue, but not PIFs. Mr. Ward said he didn't see that on the graph. "If I'm reading this right, it looks like when we had the wet spell, they Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 4 were lower; are we pretty much even toward the end of the year?" "It should have been higher because of a 5% rate increase," Mr. Smith pointed out. Mr. Bode asked him to "look at June and July under operating revenue, those figures are still lower than they would have been had there been normal precipitation." Mr. Smith acknowledged that there is a lag there. If you have abundant precipitation in May, the effect doesn't show up until June. "As we shift more of the homes to meters," Mr. Ward continued, "do we have away to balance out things like this that occur in the operation?" "You look at your operating reserves and make sure that, in a wet year, you have some extra money in the bank," Mr. Smith responded. "When you see a lot of fluctuation in revenue, it's a little harder to project sometimes," he added. "I can see a situation developing where some people aren't going to fully appreciate the dynamics that the water utility has to deal with; and I'm concerned that the public won't understand some of these figures," Mr. Ward remarked. Dave Frick wanted to know why the PIFs for water and wastewater are so much different. "Some of the development is taking place in the south," Ms. Williams said. She explained that the City provides them with water but not sewer services. "That's all South Fort Collins Sanitation District." Mr. Clopper pointed out. Drinking Water Master Plan Improvements Mike Smith said that staff is working with C112M Hill on the Drinking Water Master Plan Improvements to try to sort out the issues. "We are making progress," he said. Boxelder Site Application Update Gale McGaha Miller said the site application has been approved for the third lagoon on the property the City sold to Boxelder. However, there has not been a draft of the new discharge permit to go along with it, she said. Boxelder is proceeding with the construction. Regional 201 Study and Consultant Selection Update Ms. McGaha Miller reported that the proposals for the selection of the consultant were due on January 19th. The participating entities will take about a week and a half to sort through them and short list to from 3 to 5 proposals that will be brought in for interviews and develop selection criteria. "We are anticipating by early February a selection will be made," she concluded. Mr. Bartholow asked if the selection criteria are developed after you look at the proposals. "The selection criteria were included as part of the RFP, so the firms know what they will be rated on," Ms. Ms. McGaha Miller replied, "and we use rather standard selection criteria that staff engineers use when they look at any number of different capital projects." Northern District Ownership Limitations Mike Smith said that staff continues to wait for further information from the District. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 5 Report on Proposed Water Board Workshop Mike Smith said that staff is trying to zero in on a date. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. It was announced that the Legislative and Finance Committee will meet prior to the Water Board meeting at 2:00 on Friday, February 15, 1996. REGIONAL AND LIAISON ISSUES COMMITTEE PROPOSAL This item has been tabled until after the Water Board workshop. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE Nothing new REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE Nothing new DIALOGUE WITH COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON CHUCK WANNER Mr. Clopper thought that using the 1996 Water Board Work Plan would be a good way to keep the discussion focused. It would also be helpful for Mr. Wanner to know "what is on our plate" for next year and provide an impetus for questions of the Board and staff. Board members can also learn from Mr. Wanner what he sees as the Council's position on any of the items. WATER SUPPLY Tom Brown has headed this busy committee for several years. Mr. Clopper observed that a number of the items under water supply have been there for a number of years, e.g. the Halligan Reservoir Project. The way Mr. Wanner assesses the Council's overall reaction to the Water Supply issue is the general policy of providing an adequate water supply at a reasonable cost. Mr. Clopper said that occasionally the issue comes up of the role of the Water Board in looking at water supply issues and how that ties in with growth related policies. "This Board has tried to maintain a growth neutral stance," he stated. Moreover, regardless of whether growth occurs, it is the Board's responsibility to see that there is planning for and the acquisition of additional supplies to accommodate growth. "As Water Board president, I have been asked if water is used as a tool to either promote or limit growth," he said. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 6 "I've been around the block on that discussion," Mr. Wanner acknowledged, "but not since I've been on the Council." The Board's neutral position and the charge of having adequate water available for the citizens at any given time, has been a sensible accommodation, he said. "I haven't heard of anyone talking politically recently about trying to limit growth through the regulation of water," he added. Mr. Clopper continued by saying that the Utility's yardstick of having water supplies that would be adequate for a 1-in-50 year drought is a policy that has served us well. Mr. Wanner agreed that it seems reasonable. "Are we unique in that policy?" Mr. Clopper asked. Dennis Bode pointed out that several communities have developed similar policies in recent years. Tom Sanders brought up an issue that has been a major concern of his for several years. "I have felt that the City has not been aggressive enough in purchasing water," he asserted. He was vehemently opposed to spending a lot of money on conservation efforts; particularly universal metering. Until the Thornton situation came up, he felt the Council wasn't really proactive in staying ahead on purchasing water. "Have you seen any changes in the Council on this?" he asked. "That's one of those things that's always in the back of your mind," Mr. Wanner said. He said, in terms of water supply, lately the Council has basically been "going along with the flow. We've had some real distractions the last few months," he stressed. Therefore, it hasn't been on the top of the list. Mr. Wanner pointed out that when you look at other similar communities, Fort Collins looks better because of the variety of approaches we've used in maintaining the quantity and quality of our water supply and the quality of the facilities in which we store water. "That doesn't mean that I'm at all cavalier about having enough water to meet our needs," he emphasized. "I think the 50-year drought policy would be viewed as appropriate by most of the Council." He added that he doesn't think anybody on this current Council would be in favor of going out and buying a lot of water so we could grow. They think growth is inevitable and that we should have adequate water supplies to meet that need. Dr. Sanders stated strongly that northern Colorado has the only water left in the State (with agricultural water, etc.). "Even if we don't buy a drop of water now, we would still have enough for another 15 years, but then we'd get down to where we would be hurting in a drought." He added that he's afraid that we have reached a point where we are in a reactive mode. Until somebody (like Thornton) tries to go after some more water, we're not going to make any purchases; let's be proactive," he insisted. "I know we don't want to dry up farms, but in reality, by buying the water and leasing it back for the next 20 years, we're not drying up a single farm!" He went on to say that with the potential for the Northern District putting limitations on CBT water, acquiring water becomes a major issue. Mr. Wanner observed that it's obvious it doesn't lend itself to the kind of growth we have experienced and may experience in the future, and those limitations will present a new concern. Dr. Sanders predicts that the price of water is going to go up; as a result of that and other factors, he would like a more aggressive approach from the Council for the City to purchase more water. He it Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 7 concluded that he is concerned that people think we have plenty of water and therefore, we don't have a problem. "In the short term we don't, in the long term we do." Mr. Wanner asked if the Utility has run into some "deals" recently. He also asked what the current price for CBT is and how much money there is in the water fund. Mr. Bode said the price has gradually increased in the last 5 years; currently it's about $1650 per unit. There is between $2 and 3 million in the reserve fund. "Has that money been "raided" by any other fund?" Dr. Sanders asked. "We can't do that," Mr. Smith assured him. The Council would have to do that, and they would be prevented from doing it by the City Charter. Robert Ward related that he had recently visited the Arkansas region in the state, near Pueblo. "There is a basin that lost a law suit and has had to shut down about 1500 wells. When I see the pressure they are under, and look at where we are, we are sitting so well. But it does give you a glimpse of the future. If we continue to grow, the pressure will be developing. How will the decisions we make in the'90s position us for the next 50 years?" he wondered. Mr. Wanner acknowledged that part of our job is to foresee the potential for those kinds of situations, and respond accordingly. "I agree with the idea of buying water," George Reed began. He was looking at some data recently and learned that from 1950-1970, and again from 1970-1990 Fort Collins doubled in population. "We're now at about 100,000; 20 years from now we will probably be 200,000. If water use is doubled in the next 20 years, our cap is gone." "Regarding purchasing water," Tom Brown said, "Tom Sanders' comments suggest two possibilities: one is to use the $2-3 million that has been accumulating through cash -in -lieu payments, and some other direction from Council to purchase water over and above that." First he thinks we must look at the money that's accumulating which indicates that "we aren't purchasing water to keep up." It's his guess that the City has been reluctant to spend the money on water because of the possibility of enlarging Halligan and needing the money to do that. "There are certainly benefits to enlarging Halligan," he acknowledged, "because it is a way to essentially increase our supply." He noted that all the uncertainty about the endangered species, and with Nebraska, as well as with the uncertainty that was left after Two Forks, are countering efforts for Colorado to store additional water. While technically, Halligan may be a very feasible project, politically or environmentally it may be very difficult to do it," he pointed out. "We need to make a decision at some point about whether we want to put our eggs in the Halligan basket, or whether we want to spend some of the money for additional water while the price is still reasonable." Paul Clopper said that something which gives us a good deal of comfort, and "frankly, I think we are all proud of, is the variety of sources that are available in our water supply portfolio. We aren't beholden to any one group or type of supply." Staff has had the foresight to build and maintain that variety. To the extent that we can draw from both Horsetooth and the River, and have an opportunity, as part of the drinking water master plan, to build a new raw water pipeline, is a further Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 8 source of comfort. The potential is also there to look at oversizing as a way to foster some regionalization opportunities. Mr. Wanner asked, if we oversize our facilities, can we encourage others to regionalize? "Yes, with the Tri-district and possibly even Loveland," Mr. Clopper replied. "This availability of many sources is a critical issue," Dr. Sanders continued, "and I don't know if the Council is aware of the Conservancy District's possible new policy about limiting the purchase of CBT water." "I'm aware of if from reading the minutes," Mr. Wanner said, "but I'm not sure the rest of the Council is." Mr. Sanders suggested that if they could become better informed about the repercussions of this, there might be some political activity too. "This severely penalizes us because we've had the good foresight to develop our supplies," he stressed. "And diligent in expanding our portfolio," Mr. Clopper added. "Do we have a feel for when that's going to be finalized?" Mr. Wanner asked. "About a year from now," Mr. Bartholow responded. "The District is in the process of reviewing all of their policies." "Something that relates to the Arkansas case," Dave Frick began, "is a similar case between Wyoming and Nebraska. Nebraska has filed to expand the compact between them to get more water strictly to meet the flows for endangered species in Nebraska. This will go to the supreme court, but if they win, they are going to come back to Colorado to expand the compact on the South Platte," he cautioned. "That would require us by compact to release more water downstream, which would have a direct economic effect on the cost of water rights here." "Are you talking about future development?" Mr. Sanders asked. "Even existing development, because we have compacts that we have to meet," Mr. Frick replied. It basically depends on how the Wyoming/Nebraska court case comes out. If it is expanded, and Wyoming has to supply more water, it's going to limit what they can do even under their existing decrees, he explained. There could be a ripple effect on Joe Wright and the compact on the North Platte, Mr. Frick remarked. Dennis Bode admitted he didn't know all the details. The main discussion so far has been an attempt to change the contract for the decree that previous court cases set up; an annual diversion of 6,000 ac-ft out of Jackson County, he explained. "I don't know if that would have an effect that far upstream. It depends on what comes from the Nebraska litigation, but it definitely will have some ripple effects on the South Platte, if not on the North Platte too," Mr. Frick said. Mr. Ward commented that it is interesting to watch the river systems in the west. The Pecos had a big case between Texas and New Mexico; Texas, a downstream state, won. Also, one could note a suit between Kansas and Colorado on the Arkansas; Kansas won, and again it is a downstream state. "What we are seeing upstream is the tightening of management of water, so when looking at Wyoming and Nebraska, we need to be anticipating a bit." He said we need to ask ourselves if we are seeing a trend here. He wondered if we shouldn't be taking the opportunity to be more proactive Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 9 instead of reacting as these types of things occur. As a Water Board we need to be attuned to these trends and keep the Council informed and involved as well, he concluded. WATER CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION Terry Podmore recently became the chair of this committee. Mr. Clopper began by saying that metering is one small part of this program, and he wanted to know what percentage is now metered. Ms. Williams said that there's an average of about 1200 a year of existing residences being metered through the volunteer program; that's in addition to new construction. Mr. Wanner commented that if the Board wants to approach the Council on questions of conservation vs. supply, "we are not going to let you off the hook on conservation. We believe that conservation is the most sensible thing to do in the short run and it's the only alternative in the very long run because of supply issues." On the other hand, to use a balanced approach, the City needs some insurance in terms of its source of supply, and "that doesn't indicate a policy shift on our part that we think you should waste water on this hand while acquiring more." He conceded that conservation has a limited effect but supply also has a limited effect. The Council hasn't been approached by the Water Board for a long time, but he cautioned that "when you do, don't couch it in such terms that it looks like if we take out a little insurance by buying some water supply that we're advocating a policy to use more or a policy of wanting to grow." Tom Sanders assured Mr. Wanner that isn't the case. "If we do have a policy of conservation across the board, there are agencies within City government that don't pay for their water; I don't know if that has been resolved yet," Mr. Sanders pointed out. "We're working on it slowly," Mr. Smith responded. "What percentage of our treated water supply is that," Mr. Wanner asked. "Dollar -wise it's about $100,000 a year yet to pay," Mr. Smith replied. Wendy Williams added that adding $25,000 a year, which the Council has been setting aside, it will be the year 2002 before all the water is being paid for. At the moment all City facilities are on except for Parks & Recreation accounts. "We are about a third of the way through Parks accounts and then we'll start the recreation accounts. "Are most of those treated water or are some raw water?" Mr. Clopper asked. "I was referring to treated water used for irrigation," Ms. Williams replied. "There is about $150,000 we still have to collect." When the Council adopted the Demand Management Policy, Mr. Smith began, they suggested we accomplish this by 1995. Mr. Wanner said he could only speak for himself, but he thinks the process should press faster in the next seven years. "That's probably one question that the Board could bring to us. Our attitude about those items in the budget is that a real assessment of what things are costing us means that everybody pays their fair share." Mr. Smith recalled that some of the history on that issue in that there were some Council members who felt that the utilities always had money and the general fund never had enough money, so they ignored it. "I think it's partly a matter of education," Mr. Wanner concluded. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Smith thinks another issue in terms of demand management and conservation is the volunteer metering program, because it may not remain voluntary for much longer. Staff needs to give some thought to what we are going to be doing next; i.e. mandatory metering or perhaps looking at some other incentives. He mentioned that Council member Gina Janett has expressed interest a number of times about speeding up the process. Currently the goal for completing the program is 2005. "We can do it faster," he said, "but we must have volunteers." Dr. Sanders pointed out that it costs the City $550,000 a year for water metering. "That's why I have opposed it since the beginning," he asserted. "But that's an investment that lasts for approximately 15-20 years," Mr. Wanner pointed out. "Once the installation is completed, it's just a matter of replacing meters," Mr. Smith said. Another area of this item is public education, Mr. Clopper said. "I know there is a tremendous response to the Children's Water Festival each year, and that reached about 1600 4th graders this year." He gave staff and the NCWCD credit for keeping the ball rolling on this very successful program. LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE Howard Goldman is the Committee's chairperson. This committee monitors water -related legislation and works with staff on matters of finance and budgeting. Mr. Clopper mentioned that John Bigham in his NCWCD update, reported on several legislative items. Mr. Smith pointed out that on one piece of legislation he discussed, the election of directors for the District, Council has gone on record as supporting the direct election of the board of directors. George Reed brought up a proposed Public Trust Doctrine legislative initiative that would require the state to modify the prior appropriations approach to water allocation for the benefit of the public, which basically means instream flows. "It could affect everybody's water holdings, and it sounds like we need to know more about it." He related that the Colorado Water Congress said that if it does get on the ballot, certain people there feel that they will need to mount a tremendous public education program which could consume nearly all of the resources they have available to counter the insidious motive behind it. "What's the insidious motive?" John Bartholow wanted to know. "I think that it's a question of property rights," Mr. Reed responded. "Currently, the Colorado Conservation Board can buy water rights in a market enterprise and dedicate them to instream flows. As I understand it, this process would mean that the Attorney General's office would be responsible for trying to take that property away from individuals." Tom Brown said that the Public Trust Doctrine has been interpreted in different places two ways: one is to apply it retroactively so that current allocations could be questioned or even revoked, and the other is the more friendly way to interpret it; and that is to use it only from "this day forward." Instream flows are typically allocated by not purchasing an existing right; you are just looking at water that is still unallocated, or it could be a junior right. That doctrine was used in California recently to the benefit of Mono Lake. Los Angeles had for some time been diverting a considerable t Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 11 amount of water from Mono Lake tributaries. The water right went back to the 1920s or'30s. The California Supreme Court invoked the Public Trust Doctrine and essentially attacked Los Angeles' right. "That was the former version of that doctrine as applied in the Mono Lake case, but it's not always thought of in that way," he concluded. Mr. Ward recently read an article that was an assessment of the referenda or initiative movement which is coming to the west, and is related to water. It is a study of what is happening in Arizona. In the decade of the 70s and 80s they had about 14 referenda or initiative amendments each decade; so far this decade they have had 36. Furthermore, the percent that are on the ballot by petition is increasing over the decades and the percent that passed is staying the same. The point from this article, and one "that I sense here," is that obviously the process by which natural resources are managed, is in the tight grips of the legislature or agencies. The public is looking at this referenda/initiative process as a way of beginning to move in directions that a lot of new urban people want to go but can't because of the system. "In Colorado we have seen it with the spring bear hunt vote, where it was a wildlife type of activity but the public perceived that it was a practice that they did not want to continue, for whatever reason. I think a lot of issues, like the Public Trust Doctrine issues, have a lot of appeal from that point of view." "There are lots of ramifications from some of these, and it begs the question, does the public understand that they are going to be asked to vote on some very complicated water management issues. Therefore, do we wait until the referenda issues hit the ballot before we try to educate the public or do we do something sooner?" Mr. Bigham thinks that basically the Public Trust Doctrine would be "that the have-nots want what the haves have, and if we don't educate the public the have-nots will get what the haves have." Mr. Sanders pointed out that the private ownership of water is unique to the western United States. "Every other country says that water is a government entity, and we appear to be moving that way. As we get more people from California and the east moving here, they have no knowledge of the Appropriations Doctrine. I think we are going to get more government control of water in the guise of it's being for the public good, and I disagree with that philosophy." "You disagree that the public should have some goods?" Mr. Wanner questioned. "No, that government control of the water is going to improve the public good in the use of the water," Mr. Sanders responded. "I think the market economy and the market mechanism for moving water, moves the water where it needs to be moved. Minimum flow is an issue, but it can be resolved; the federal government can buy the water," he insisted. He added that the endangered species issues can be accomplished in the framework of the system. "I agree that these are burning issues," Mr. Wanner responded. "I think Council's policy about directly electing board members for the Districts is a strongly felt philosophy, partly because of natural resource management, and partly because of their attitude about the right of citizens to decide where their tax dollars go. "He remembers wondering about some of the overlapping boards in terms of the District and other water entities in the area. "You get the flip response that 'he who has the gold makes the rules, and water flows towards money,' " He continued by saying that while water is an Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 12 extremely technical question, public good and public policy are determined by the public wants and by trying to make the resources meet the majority of needs for the majority of the public. "I think you will find that a number of people on Council and a lot of people who are moving into this state who do not understand, and who do not view the traditional water allocation system here as entirely reasonable, who will say that policy is not best made just through the market. Part of their argument is that it hasn't been made just through the market; it has been made through some pretty heavy- handed political moves and it's been made through some give-aways. For example, the Big Thompson project was built in the late 30s for some $25 million, and how much interest did we collect?" On the other hand, he doesn't think the Council is cavalier about that it's a simple system and that you can tamper with it regularly and still have it work. "I don't think that the new public that is now Colorado is willing to let a small group of people who have traditionally controlled the resource for a certain set of ends, continue to control it in the fashion they have," he asserted. The other side of that coin is, can the people who understand it control enough of it to keep the system working properly. "It's easier to deal with specific questions, than in generalities," he added. Mike Smith emphasized that people must be educated about how much it is going to cost them. If they're going to have the Public Trust Doctrine and water in the stream, they're going to have to pay for it; "There's no free lunch!" "I think that's true, and the public has to understand that," Mr. Wanner responded. Mr. Ward asked John Bigham,"In light of the effort to elect members directly to the District Board, rather than to simply oppose every effort, has there been any thought given to an attempt to develop an alternative that would do what Mr. Wanner was just talking about; i.e. trying to move the system more towards what the public is asking for, but retain the features of the current system that will give it the stability?" "There have been discussions for a number of years," Mr. Bigham replied. "Obviously, the entire water community is not in agreement and they don't appear to be able to come to a consensus, so that's one of the obstacles to overcome. Actually there are a number of options being considered right now," he said. One thing that Mr. Ward sees that gives stability to the District Board is the long term service of a lot of the Board members. If members were elected to 10-year terms, for example, that could be a way to elect them and continue to maintain stability. Mr. Wanner doesn't think the public sees the system trying to change. "It's vital, it's complicated and it's delicate; I think many of us accept all of those things, but we still can't comprehend the basic concept of why we can't leave water in the creek. Furthermore, must we have these board members appointed by a water judge, and do we always have to go to court?" He has looked at some of the budgets of the water districts in this state, and over half the money goes to lawyers, "and that's when they're not in a major fight," he observed. "There's not question about that," Mr. Sanders agreed. "It's the most lawyer -driven water system in the country!" Mr. Wanner thinks Mr. Goldman is right; the more contention there is and the less mediation, the more it costs everybody. His general feeling is if Board members have specific policy questions that they want to bring to the Council, or if they have something the Council needs to be educated about, tell him. "I don't pretend to know very much about the whole thing," he said. He suggested preparing a simple 2-3 page paper that says, "we 0 Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 13 foresee this as a problem and here are some options, e.g. this a balance between Halligan and buying more water." "This has been a good discussion," Mr. Clopper said. Before the group moved on to Engineering, there was an item under finance that he wanted clarified. "When we were discussing the proposed budget, there was a policy question on interpretation of how we calculated something; does staff remember that?" he asked. "That was on the net income issue," Mr. Smith recalled. "The issue we will try to clarify is to set up the reserve for water rights so the figure that Dennis Bode gave Chuck Wanner, and that Tom Sanders is always worried about, is listed." Wendy Williams said that staff will also be bringing the issue of PIFs to the Board. "We hope to begin discussing PIFs with the Legislative and Finance Committee in March." ENGINEERING A major item Mr. Clopper brought up under Engineering was the Water Treatment Master Plan. There are a number of things to put on the table under that item. Mr. Smith agreed that it's the major item because the Halligan project has been put on hold. "The Water Treatment Master Plan is going to be exciting because it has a regional flavor to it," Mr. Clopper pointed out. Mr. Smith said there are some items that are under design for construction that are in the budget for about $6 million. The rest of the plan is being overhauled; "we're basically starting from zero, asking the question, what are our most pressing needs? e.g., a raw water pipeline." One of the things that Dr. Sanders is worried about is the fact that our proposed wastewater treatment facility is located downstream of Ptarmigan, and because they're growing faster and bigger, "we may lose the opportunity to build there." "We don't need it yet," Mr. Smith responded. "The 201 study might show that it shouldn't be there, but we don't know that." Mr. Herrmann observed that we might even end up selling the property. The study will also give an indication if it is feasible as a regional facility. "With Boxelder still being here, it seems to be everybody do their own thing," Mr. Sanders remarked. Mr. Clopper observed that there doesn't currently appear to be much opposition to the plant. "I guarantee there will be when we begin to get serious about it," Mr. Sanders asserted. Mr. Smith pointed out that the two biggest issues that people are concerned about is how it looks and if it smells. "You can make the wastewater treatment facilities look any way you want to and make them so they don't smell, but it costs money," he stressed. LIAISON ISSUES Mr. Clopper said that we typically think of liaison issues in terms of regionalization. "We are currently getting into the regional 201 wastewater study. The Water Treatment Master Plan is the most tangible opportunity for regionalization on the water side." "And the major feature of that is the pipeline," Mr. Smith added. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Clopper also pointed out that each year the Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins Water Boards and staffs meet for dinner to discuss regional issues. Ms. Nortier related that it is Fort Collins' turn to host the meeting. Mr. Clopper asked the Board to think about actual topics to discuss at the February meeting. Ms. Nortier said she would include it as an agenda item. WATER QUALITY Mr. Clopper recalled that a few years ago a City Council/Water Board Water Quality Policy Committee crafted a Water Quality Policy that was adopted by Council in 1993. He asked Ben Alexander if the document has helped him and his staff in structuring what they do and in making decisions. "It certainly has given me guidance as a staff member and we use it often in our planning decisions and determining how to allocate resources. We have also received a number of inquiries about the policy from other utilities around the United States to whom we have sent copies of the document," Mr. Alexander responded. "A lot of utilities are struggling with the same kinds of decisions that are incorporated in that document," he added. He admitted that it is not always that clear, but it always points us in the right direction. Mr. Smith agrees that it's a very good policy. Dr. Sanders explained that the issue here is that some of the districts and some rural utilities don't treat quite to the level that Fort Collins does. He acknowledged that we need to be inter -connected to help each other when the need arises. Fort Collins provides treated water at times to a water district but we don't take their water; although they comply with state and federal regulations, their water doesn't meet the same standards that we use to treat our water. The Districts have asked for a long time, why we treat to that level when we don't have to. That's why they don't and they save money. "We don't want to cut back and reduce our quality to be able to combine treatment facilities." He added that we hope that the Council agrees with that concept. He pointed out that Fort Collins is 5-10 years ahead of many of the utilities on foreseeing the problems and trying to address those now, versus being told to comply several years down the road. Mr. Smith explained that the City has a contract with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District to deliver various amounts of treated water; it doesn't amount to much, about 600 acre feet a year. A group of staff members is evaluating the issues, and "we may get to a point of sharing some of that information with the Board," he concluded. "Speaking of water quality, did the Utility get any flack from the PCB contamination story in the newspaper?" Mr. Clopper asked. "We had one call," Mr. Smith replied. He said that a lot of that is due to the fact that the Council, the Board and staff, over a number of years, have been straight and honest with the community on water issues. He also mentioned that the Utility had a lot of good staff work from Gale McGaha Miller and Wendy Williams. They covered all the issues with our project and operations people and did considerable research. They also had a lot of help from CSU. They made sure that correct information was given to the community. 11 Is Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 15 CHARTER REVIEW This item was included at the request of the City Clerk's Office because staff will be dealing with water rights. Dennis Bode explained that there is some language in the Charter about controlling the City's water supply and how you handle surplus water, and that gets into the rental of water. Part of it may be just a clarification issue. There are a few changes there that may be helpful as we try to administer some of the raw water. Mr. Smith added that it is considered more of a housekeeping item than a policy issue. The item says that the Board will formulate recommendations to the Charter Review Committee concerning any proposed Charter Amendments which may require review by a board or commission. The Charter Review Committee has started meeting. ROUTINE ITEMS The Water Board will review and consider, as needed, such items as raw water rental rates, cash in - lieu -of water rights rates, and other things that are done on a regular basis. Mr. Bartholow had a general question for Mr. Wanner. "Since your principle source of input from this Board is through the minutes, which are excellent, how do you scan them and how do you look for information? Are you looking for a consensus from the Board, or are you looking for development of the issues if there is more than one side of the coin? "I look for something like the CBT cap, for example," Mr. Wanner responded. "How is that addressed and where are we going with it, and what ramifications it has for the City?" The more routine things like the graphs we had today, are part of some of the short term changes and updates for the Utility. He mentioned that he wanted to be the Water Board liaison but didn't realize that the meetings were on Friday afternoon which is a very busy time in his business. On the other hand, he said he probably has about as much background in water as any of the other council members, "and I certainly have some interest. Maybe the way I have to work this is read the minutes and then set up an every couple of months meeting with Mike Smith." "With the recent restructuring of the Utilities with water, wastewater and stormwater all together, have you given any thought about combining the Water and Stormwater Boards?" Mr. Smith asked. "No, I haven't thought about it," Mr. Wanner replied. "That's certainly something to consider." "I don't like the idea," Mr. Sanders said. There was agreement among a number of the Board members that it would be a rather difficult arrangement. Mr. Clopper thanked Mr. Wanner for being available for this meeting. Mr. Wanner said that if there is something that the Board is feeling that we don't understand as a Council, I am the logical person to try to convince about it first. "I talked a lot today, because we haven't had a chance for a dialogue previously. I'm normally not so talkative," he stressed. "On a day-to-day basis you would find me easier to get along with than my philosophy indicates," he pointed out. "Thank you for your candor," Mr. Clopper remarked. "I found your comments extremely helpful as a new person on this Board," Mr. Ward said. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Clopper mentioned that Mr. Wanner can also call him as the president or John Bartholow as the vice president, at any time. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:57 P.M. Water Board'Secretary