Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/19/1984MINUTES Water Board October 19, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Henry Caulfield, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Tom Sanders, Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith, Jim O'Brien (alt.), John Scott (alt.) STAFF PRESENT Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Curt Miller, Ben Alexander, Paul Eckman, Ass't City Attorney MEDIA: Mark: Radtke, KCOL GUESTS: Toni Brownhill, Chris Kneeland, Mike Degner, Randy Ross, All from Leadership Fort Collins MEMBERS ABSENT: Norman Evans, Bernie Cain, Ray Glabach, Mort Bittinger Due to the absence of Chairman Norm Evans, Vice Chairman Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Explanation of Packet Material Henry Caulfield announced that the meeting with the City Council on the rate study will be held on October 23 at 4:00 in the CIC Room at City Hall. He also explained that the Ditch Company agreement included in the Water Board packets is not an agenda item for this time. It will be discussed at the November meeting. Mr. Caulfield called the Board's attention to a publication by EDAW called "Xeriscape Demonstration Gardens, A Development Guide," that is available for Water Board Members to share. The concept of Xeriscape is creative landscaping that uses less water. Minutes The minutes of the September 21, 1984meeting were approved. Update of Windy Gap Project Two months ago Dennis Bode gave the Board an update on Windy Gap. He gave a review of what has happened since then. He said that the project is nearly complete. They are in the final stages of construction and now will begin testing. About 10 days ago they were able to use one of the pumps and pump water from the Colorado River up to Lake Granby for a 24 hour period. It appears that the project will be on line next spring. The plan for that time is to bring over about 5,000 acre feet of water and it will be distributed among the cities over here, but most probably will go to the Platte River Power Authority. One of the many things they will do next year is to pump at a rate of 600 cfs for about two days. By doing that they hope to perfect the river flow decrees. The main thing that has been occuring the last month or two is the settlement that is being negotiated with the Western Slope people regarding the Azure Project. Two years ago to get the project started, they agreed to build a Western Slope project as a mitigation measure for the Western Slope interests. The Azure project turned out to look infeasible, so they began again and decided that one way to settle the matter, instead of building a project over there for them, is to negotiate a cash settlement through an agreement with the six cities. There are two advantages to settling in this way: 1) relieving the six cities of the commitment of actually going over there and managing the construction of a project. 2) working out a provision in the agreement where the Western Slope peeple would not oppose the perfecting of the decrees when they are established. It appears that the two sides are coming close to an agreement. Henry Caulfield asked for a clarification on the S,000 acre feet of which most would go to PRPA. Is it actually going to PRPA or through the City? Mr. Bode explained that it would be through the City as a part of the reuse agreement. He also said that the actual amount of water brought over may depend somewhat on our demands and how much effluent we deliver to Platte River; and that would determine how much Windy Gap water would be delivered to us. Tom Sanders asked what water PRPA has been using to give to the City before Windy Gap went on line. Mr. Bode said they have been paying us $2S an acre foot per year for the amount of water they took up to Rawhide. The cash was divided between the City and Water Supply and Storage Co. because they are participating in the reuse plan too. The money goes into the water operations fund. Jim O'Brien asked if the Western Slope has plans for the money in -lieu -of Azure. Mr. Bode explained that they have two different projects they are looking at and trying to ascertain if either is feasible. They intend to pursue some kind of project; probably not Azure. Paul Eckman related that on October 16, City staff presented a proposed ordinance to the City Council expressing the consent of the City to include lands in the City in the Municipal Sub District. The Windy Gap Project was constructed under the authority of the Municipal Sub District of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The Water Conservancy Act requires that lands receiving or using waters of the sub district must be included in the sub district. Since 1970 none of the annexations into the City of Fort Collins have been included in the sub district. If these are not included, we would not be able to use our Windy Gap water that we have a right to use pursuant to the PRPA reuse agreement and decree. The City has had four _. c., ❑ c,f annc.,ations since 1970. The City Council requested that the Water Board review the ordinance first, so that the Water Board's concerns can be addressed. One concern of a Council member was that the municipal sub district has the ability to come up with a mill levy within its boundaries. Although the sub district is to be paid for through revenue bonds, and revenue from waters that are sold, it is conceivable that if waters couldn't be delivered because of a natural disaster, or the cities would go bankrupt and fail to pay, or the price was too high, there is that possibility that the bonds would have to be paid off through a mill levy. Thus, if the annexed lands are included in the sub district, there would be a remote chance of taxation, and if we don't include the lands, we can't use Windy Gap water. Mr. Eckman asked for a recommendation from the Water Board. Dennis Bode explained that most of the ouside of City customers were included in the initial petition in the City of Fort Collins. Bill Carnahan said that PRPA went through an amendment process where the plant site was included in the municipal sub -district since 1970. Since there was some confusion about the entire reuse plan, Dennis Bode explained it as follows: There are 4200 acre feet that is provided from the effluent of our Michigan Ditch/Joe Wright new reusable water, as well as the Water Supply & Storage water. So there is that quantity that would provide PRPA with 4200 acre feet. Once they get the 4200 acre feet, they would pay us back with Windy Gap water. Then we would consume a portion of that 4200 acre feet of Windy Gap water and the return flow would be available to Platte River. They would be able to use the 4200 plus some return flow from the Windy Gap water so that might be another 2,000 acre feet. The S,000 acre feet mentioned is the total amount of Windy Gap water that they are bringing over. Platte River would only ask for perhaps 4,000 acre feet of that. The remainder would go to the other cities. To make it clearer, Paul Eckman drew a diagram on the board. Tom Sanders and Henry Caulfield asked why the City should be held liable for the taxation when it should be PRPA's responsibility. Mr. Caulfield said 16,000 acre feet is held by Platte River, not us, even though it is true we have first right of refusal. Why should the City of Fort Collins "hold the bag for the entire amount at this time?" Mr. Bode said we would still get first use of about 2300 acre feet of Windy Gap water. Those of us further north would have more liability than the other cities involved in the project; for example, Boulder has only 8,000 a.f. What are the equities in this matter? Tom Sanders commented that he doesn't mind the tar; liability if the City owns the shares. Ultimately the City doesn't have a single vote on the Windy Gap water; PRPA does. Dave Stewart commented that the City should be liable for its consumptive use but not the whole amount. Dennis Bode said that the reason they did that was simply as security far the bonds and there never has been any push to actually tax. Henry Caulfield suggested that perhaps this is more a matter of the City reaching some kind of an agreement with PRPA. Paul Eckman said that PRPA and the City have nothing to do with the mill levy. Bill Carnahan recalled that there was some kind of an agreement made in that respect, because of that eventuality since they can't assess taxes against anybody. They have made the obligation for their percentage ownership to make the payments and what they said was we will raise rates to whatever level is necessary to make that obligation. Paul Eckman thinks that whether we get water or not or own any Windy Gap water, all land within the sub district is subject to being taxed if there is no other way to pay the bonds. Fie continued that the City's thought at the time _,_ r- benefit, ,Jas that the risk was remote and the benefit significant enough that it would be worthwhile to participate. Henry Caulfield commented that we all know Windy Gap is expensive water. What happens if for example, Boulder, Loveland and Longmont find it is cheaper to pick up shares of regular Big T water than buying WG water? B111 Carnahan explained that he believes the Cities have a "take or pay" commitment and that applies to PRPA too. He also said that the Cities don't have use for the water now but still have the financial commitment to pay for it, so the cost per acre foot is extremely high because they aren't taking very much of it. Dennis Bode added that the big part of it is the debt service. Most of the cities have now made some arrangements to get that revenue in through some increases. Jim O'Brien asked how the Windy Gap project is paid for if the Conservancy District finds they can't cover their debts for a year; do they have the legal authority to increase the mill levy anyway? Mr. Eckman explained that there are two separate mill levies. The Conservany District mill levy could not be used to fund the Windy Gap project. Henry Caulfield remarked that the farm lands are not a part of the Windy Gap project --the farmers are not liable for the mill levy on municipal water although we have been liable for the farmer. Neil Grigg suggested that the Water Board allow the Legislative and Finance Committee to grapple with the problem and come up with an overview or summary. Henry Caulfield asked the Board to consider that the Water Board has raised a number of questions that require Paul Eckman to review a number of documents for clarification. After he gathers the information he needs, he should draft a communication from the Water Board to the City Council and inform Mr. Caulfield upon its completion. Mr. Caulfield will call a meeting of the Legislative and Finance Ckommittee and consider the resolution at that time. There will be a Water Board meeting a few days before the Council meets to consider this proposal on second reading. There were no objections from the Board to this solution. Four members of Leadership Fort Collins came to observe the Water Board meeting. They were welcomed and were asked to introduce themselves. Water Quality Control Commission Review Mike Smith introduced Linda Burger who is the Environmental Regulations Specialist for Water Utilities. Ms. Burger was appointed to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in August of 1983, The major function of the Commission is to develop and oversee programs to protect the quality of the waters cf the state. Ms. Burger briefed the Board on three areas of concern that have broad implications for the state of Colorado and for our area too. The Commission has been involved, during the last several months, in developing the ground wort: for a ground water protection program. The state doesn't have too many regulations for ground water; it is almost exclusively surface waters. The Commission has adopted a goal for ground water quality and a general orientation as far as developing a regulatory program. What it involves is regulating industrial sources through control regulations specific to that particular industry and those control regulations will be developed over the next couple of years. Henry Caulfield asked how this will relate to the new D,I groendwater strategy that has been announced recently. Ms. Burger said that EPA has decided not to develop specific regulations for groundwater but rather to provide a sense of direction to the states. The states are going to take a primary roll both for developing and financing groundwater protection programs. The prime concern there is the financing part. EPA is not putting much in the way of funds for groundwater quality protection. Therefore, they have to leave the major effort, in terms of developing regulations, to the states. Mr. Caulfield said they have developed three categories of groundwater: 1) that which will not be protected because it is already poor; 2) that which will be protected because it is very important; 3) and that which is somewhat in the middle. How does this relate to the Commission's process? Ms. Burger explained that mainly it will affect how stringent regulations are. Those very high quality waters that are currently used for drinking water supplies will be given the highest priority. High quality waters that may be used for drinking water will be given the next priority, and those in between will probably require less stringent treatment, but if they are being used for drinking water despite the mediocre quality, protection will be required to at least maintain that level. Dave Stewart asked how are the Oil & Gas Commission and the WQCC going to resolve their differences about the number 2 injection wells, for example. Who gets control and whose criteria are going to be used? Linda Burger explained that one of the major efforts in the whole groundwater problem has been to identify what state agencies have what responsibilities by statute and what programs are already in effect and where the gaps are in legislation, where the gaps are in regulations etc. Basically, the Oil & Gas Commission will continue to regulate those activities they regulated in the past, and the understanding seems to be that if the WQCC finds areas where there are groundwater problems, that may fall under the purvue of the Oil & Gas Commission, the WQCC will bring it to their attention and continue to push until there is some satisfaction. Ms. Burger added that the County has a lot of clout in this area and if Larimer County would decide to develop some regulations, that would be profitable. If you want something done about this, she said, push the County Commissioners. Neil Grigg asked how much staff the Health Department has to study and identify problems and support the Commission in groundwater. They have only one staff person. Ms. Burger said that funds were approved to provide an additional 1 or 1 1/2 individuals for groundwater; thus, somewhat of a commitment is being made. There would be a cooperative effort between the counties and the state. Another area of activity that is going on is review of the South Platte River Basin standards and classifications of which the Poudre River is a part. State law requires that the standards and classifications be reviewed every three years; EPA regulations require that also. An informational hearing was held in March of this year and the Commission accepted recommendations for changing classifications and standards for the entire South Platte Basin. It turns out that there were a large number of suggestions made by the Division of Wildlife for changes in aquatic life classifications. A schedule was set for high priority items for hearings starting in February of 1985. There will be hearings in March relating to the Poudre and Big Thompson Rivers. In "SO and "81 the hearings were very broad based and considered all the numeric standards for classified uses. This time there will be specific porposals to consider. Mr. Caulfield asked if any member, of the Board wished to have some preparatory work started for the r,'--; �— _ _ ,'ill.,_ Sr.ith said that, at this i -6- point, there is no need for Board innvolvement. The Utility is meeting with legal counsel to prepare for the approach that the City hopes to take. Ms. Burger said that the only issue the City has pending is to petition for a change in the nitrite standard. The Division of Wildlife has recommended the classification for Spring Creek be changed from class 2 warm water fishery to class 1 warm water fishery and also that Sheldon Lake be classified as a warm water fishery. MaryLou Smith asked what the implications for those requested changes would have on the City. Ms. Burger said that those are longer term kindsof concerns because the Commission recommended that those two items be referred to the Larimer/Weld COG for recommendations and they would be taken up several months down the line; possibly fall of '85. Ms. Smith asked how this would impact the City. Linda Burger related that it would be almost impossible to change Spring Creek into a class 1 warm water fishery. Furthermore, it would probably disrupt our storm drainage. Henry Caulfield suggested that the Engineering Committee may want to talk about this further in the coming months as the Water Utility considers strategy. Ms. Burger went on to discuss the third point which concerns the State of Colorado and EPA with regard to the delegation of the state discharge permits program. Ms. Burger is a member of the Commission sub —committee that has worked towards finding a solution to those difficulties. Basically, what EPA says is that there are a number of provisions in the state act that contradict the Federal Clean Water Act and if the state does not move towards resolving those problems, they will rescind delegation of the state discharge permit program and EPA would start operating the program again. There are several areas of contention; one not very controversial area is basically an error in drafting the state water quality control act which, under certain circumstances, allows a discharger not to be subject to criminal penalties for discharging without a permit or discharging in violation. It was an oversight in drafting and there is agreement that it needs to be corrected. The other two areas overlap: The first problem relates to conflict of interest on the part of commissioners. The Clean Water Act apparently does not allow anyone who receives a major portion of their income from the discharger to be on a board or commission like the WQCC in so much as they are hearing appeals of individual permit issues. As far as the majority of the Commission's activities, there are no conflicts. There seem to be two basic approaches throughout the state in dealing with that problem: 1) try to make changes in the Federal Clean Water Act; 2) take individual permit appeals through an administrative office as opposed to having it appealable to the Commission. The biggest area of difficulty, according to Ms. Burger, is that the state law allows consideration of economics through a phrase called economic reasonableness. Virtually in every decision the Commission makes, to some extent, the legislative intent calls for consideration of economic reasonableness in all decisions. There are various provisions allowing for economic considerations in specific situations; the most critical of those is that anytime a discharger is required to go beyond secondary treatment, for ammonia in particular, but other parameters as well, that discharger is entitled to a hearing before the WQCC to consider the economic reasonableness of the requirement. The EPA's positionis that the Federal Clean prohibits the consideration of economics in water quality decisions except under very restrictive circumstances. The state's position is that it is extremely important that the use of a stream and the potential improvements to a stream be considered along with the investment that is going to have to be made in treatment facilities. Ms. Burger thinks there is a strong commitment throughout the water community in the state to the concept of considering economics and this is an area where there is a real "knocking of heads" between the state and the federal government. The Commission and the Health Department have put together a task force which includes members of the Commission, and representatives of various water interests and environmental groups in the state. That group has been meeting for some time now to come up with some recommendations for possibly amending the state act as well as developing regulations that would resolve some of the issues. Fifty-five pages have been developed so far, of both statutory and regulatory proposals. The most significant change from the way business has been handled in the past, is what is called the transition process. This will allow a discharger who is facing beyond secondary treatment to go to the division and request that a study be done of the plant processes and the stream itself to find whether or not going beyond secondary treatment is really appropriate and what is the most cost effective way to go. At the conclusion of the study the division would come to the Commission and recommend either that the standard on the stream in question be maintained or raised or lowered based on the results of the study. What this would allow is scientific input into the decision prior to making sometimes very high investments into additional treatment facilities. That approach seems to have some promise, but there are some objections to it by EPA as well. At any rate, there are many meetings going on. There is little chance that this particular package will be adopted but there is interest in working with the basic concepts to resolve the differences. An agreement is some time down the road. There will be an information hearing before the Commission in December to consider this package and receive public input. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary The Board received the report in their packets. Dennis Bode said that for the month of September we were about 98% of average. Committee Reports Education Committee Dave Stewart explained that the committee had worked with Molly Nortier to put together a packet of local water information for Poudre R-1 fourth grade water units. That was put on hold this summer. However, Molly Nortier related that information will be given to the fourth grade teachers for their units. This fall the Department also provided for the fourth grade "The Story of Drinking Water," an AWWA publication for students. The workbooks and teachers' guides were completely revised this year. Other Business beginning with the November meeting, all the Water Board meetings will be held in the Light and Power Conference Room to the right down the hall as you wall: in the main door. Water Utilities needs additional Space so some employees will be moved to our conference room. Dave Stewart praised the City for what is being done at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. It looks very attractive, he said. It could be mistaken for a park. Tom Sanders asked if anything has happened with Halligan Reservoir since the last couple of meetings. Mike Smith explained that North Poudre felt obligated to work with the Judson's. Roger Krempel set up a meeting for early November to talk with Mr. Judson to see what he had in mind. Chairman Norm Evans approved of this idea. At the November meeting Mr. Smith will report on that meeting. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. --r------c,- ----- Water Board Secretary