Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/18/1986MINUTES WATER BOARD April 18, 1986 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Mary Lou Smith, John Scott, Tom Moore, Tom Sanders, Ray Herrmann (alt.) Staff Present Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger, Curt Miller, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Media Judy Harrington, Denver Post Members Absent Jim O'Brien, Dave Stewart, Stan Ponce (alt.) President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Paul Eckman pointed out on-p. 10, last paragraph, 6th line, cross out "in El Paso County." Henry Caulfield indicated that the 7th paragraph, p.5 where he is quoted should read, "Would the Forest Service----" and in the last paragraph the next to the last line starting "This is not the --- change "you" to "it." The minutes were then approved as corrected. Dr. Evans requested a change in the agenda in order to clear up his involvement in the Thornton water matter at the beginning of the meeting. A copy of his letter of clarification which he sent to the City Council was distributed to the Water Board. About February 1, a Thornton representative approached Dr. Evans to assemble a study team of CSU experts in agronomy, in farm management and Engineering experts in aspects of irrigation management for a plan they described as a concept without revealing anything more. The possibility of acquiring water and land somewhere (which Dr. Evans assumed would be in the South Platte Basin) was mentioned only briefly without elaboration. Subsequent to that time he looked into getting a university team together in the areas that were mentioned with a contract to do the kinds of studies which Thornton requested. On March 12th, Thornton asked to give a briefing to the team of faculty members that had the necessary expertise. At that time they disclosed where they were aiming with the project and informed the group that they had acquired most of the land. Dr. Evans emphasized that this was when he first learned about the involvement in the Poudre Basin. The Water Board met on March 28th; at the March 12th meeting Dr. Evans and the other CSU experts had Water Board Minute • • April 18, 1986 Page 3 the public. Is this the direction you want to go? What additional comments and suggestions do you have? Henry Caulfield referred to the last paragraph on the first page under the summary of recommendations. The last part of the first sentence reads" "---and will also set the foundation for future options to manage water demands." He thinks we are, to some degree, managing water demands in what we are doing now. The combination of installing meters if this goes through, and using the metered rate and the projection of what effect it will have on demand is something we are doing about demand currently; not just a foundation. Therefore, he would suggest that the first sentence should read: "The recommended program summarized in this report will address present concerns in the management of water demands. They also relate to the Utility goal of providing adequate service in an equitable and cost effective manner." Ray Herrmann said he has written down some editing comments which he will give to staff to do with as they please. Mr. Caulfield also cited on the second page, the second paragraph, the phrase, "There are no immediate crises on the horizon---." He realizes that it was written prior to the disclosure of the Thornton plan. He suggested that it be deleted. Next, he referred to page 7, the final paragraph, "The Utility's annual meter reading cost would increase by approximately $20,000 in the first year ---." He assumed from what had been discussed previously that the electric meter reader would be reading the water meters and that perhaps they would be supplemented. He thinks it should be pointed out that this is supplemental to the existing reading costs already done by the electric utility. John Scott referred to page 2 under recommendation No. 2. Is the timing going to be set by the City? Dennis Bode said there would probably be a methodical plan, but it hasn't been determined what that would be at this time. It would be approximately over a three-year period. Mr. Scott said - people would probably want to know whose "house is going to be metered first." Mike Smith explained that we may have the reverse problem too. When the City starts raising the flat rate, many of those customers may want to become metered as well. Thus, we must make some provisions for those who volunteer for the change. With regard to costs, Norm Evans thinks staff might consider pulling these together in a little more explicit way. They appear to be spread out too much. Furthermore, he doesn't see the benefits showing up very clearly. Mr. Caulfield wondered as he was reading the document if this was the style that is ordinarily used to present things to the Council. Bill Carnahan explained that Council is very sensitive to personnel issues, etc. Mr. Caulfield thinks it could be organized more clearly so the focus is on one topic at a time. Mr. Carnahan stressed that there isn't a form that is followed. Hence, any suggestions are welcome. Mr. Bode admitted that staff has been struggling with that section somewhat. Water Board Minute • April 18, 1986 Page 5 interest. You are required to raise rates in order to get those revenues to come in. What we are talking about here is, in effect, capacity that already exists and we are able to phase in the metering program; we are able to phase in our capital expenditures for meters out of funds that we have or will be saving to match that so we don't have that gap develop. You buy the capacity by buying the meters for existing capacity. John Scott added that it is all predicated on demand; you can slow down the demand with meters. Mr. Carnahan clarified further that the difference, with every meter you install, you recapture some part of the capacity and you are able to recapture it in much smaller parts so you can control the rate at which you do it to make sure all of those things match ---that is a real advantage. The money that is coming in is somewhat reflective of the growth so you are able to match the two better, which provides more flexibility. Mike Smith added that the concept of "when you delay something you save money" is going to be difficult to get across to the public. Neil Grigg concurred that this is going to be a very important concept to convey to the public. He thinks we still need to work on communicating that point. Ray Herrmann said that it is true that you must show that you are reducing your demand so that there is a delay on your capital expenditures --that is really complicated because your demand has to increase faster than the rate of inflation, otherwise by delaying capital expenditures, you lose. "I'm not sure that is going to be the case," he said "because the growth rate has been about 3% and inflation has been more than that." He thinks inflation is going to exceed demand, so you will have to basically get into the loan recovery. He doesn't understand the economics of that and he thinks others will have the same problem. Dr. Grigg suggested a way to explain it. "It's like we are going to have a car-pooling program now. Because we are all going to be car-pooling, we won't use our cars as much so they won't deteriorate as fast, so we won't have to buy a new one as soon." Dr. Evans said the other dimension of that subject is that with acquisition of water you have the same proposition. We've always acquired water ahead of our needs, not because of our needs, but because of its availability. It's not always available when you need it. Economists and investment people always shudder at that, he said. Ray. Herrmann said actually the argument we've been making is that it would make it a good investment because you are buying it at cheaper dollars. It would seem to him that the argument we are making for capital non -expenditures is a stronger argument than delay -- the idea being if you conserve, you in essence can avoid some total capital expenditures rather than just delaying them 10 years. Bill Carnahan added, in fact, initially you are allowing people to buy into existing plant capacity, which is cheaper than the next increment and it is cheaper for the customers. Henry Caulfield raised another concern with regard to p. 5 first full paragraph, first sentence: "A misconception shared by many utility customers is that the installation of water meters will increase the amount they pay for water." On the chart it shows that the flat rate and metered Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 6 are quite similar. On p. 10, the projected rate adjustments and increases are shown for flat rate customers compared to metered customers. Obviously flat rate customers are going to have a big increase compared to metered. This needs to be reconciled because on the surface it is an inconsistent statement. Dennis Bode explained that in 1986, in dollars, those rates look very similar, but the flat rate customer uses much more water than the metered. Mr. Caulfield said he is aware of the reason, but he repeated, "on the surface it is an inconsistent statement." Unless you understand that the cost -of -service is really higher for the flat rate customers, and what they are going to be doing is paying the same as they do now but for 20% less water. Dennis Bode acknowledged that that is true for now but in 3 or 4 years, that metered customer may be paying 20% less than the flat rate customer. Henry Caulfield contends that per gallon of water, he is going to be paying more. Mr. Bode said yes per gallon in 1986 and 1987. Mr. Caulfield added with meters there will be no change in rates but you will be doing it with less water. You must be prepared to explain this, he stressed. Mr. Carnahan pointed out that the tag line is with a meter you are able to control your costs so you are able to maintain your green lawn cheaper than your neighbor. Mr. Bode said perhaps the sentence about the misconception is confusing and staff will work on changing that. The Board moved on to the two page questions and answers document. Mary Lou Smith contends, as she did with the larger document that it needs to be written so that it is clear and understandable for the public to grasp. She agrees with Neil Grigg that even for the more in depth document there needs to be a very tight summary. It is a complicated issue which makes it even more important to address it in such a way that the public won't think we are trying to "pull the wool over their eyes." She suggested that it be prepared by someone who is not technical and understands public relations. Norm Evans added that maybe we are putting -too much into the answers. The answers possibly give more information than is necessary. Ms. Smith said it is not an easy task because you don't want to cut out too much. "There is a fine line to walk; it's tough to do." Dennis Bode explained that the question and answer document was a first attempt at boiling it down to some questions that need to be answered. Ms. Smith said it is a very good start and in the right direction. Mike Smith said staff would take care of having someone rewrite the document needed for the general public, keeping her suggestions and direction in mind. MaryLou Smith and Neil Grigg suggested a cover page for the large document. Most of the Board agreed that the questions and answers format was quite good. Ms. Smith stressed that she continues to believe that a public relations person is needed to do the final writing. Water Board Minutes• • April 18, 1986 Page 7 Staff Reports Dennis Bode prepared a Water Supply and Demand summary for 1986 which was sent out with the packets. Mr. Bode explained that staff prepares a summary each year to show what the supply looks like as well as the projected demands. The monthly treated water production summary was also included. Mr. Bode reported that it had been quite dry during the month of March which led to some fairly high water usage. In April it slowed down because of the precipitation. Recognition of Water Board Members Tom Sanders sent out a memo in February to Board members proposing that 5 former and current Water Board members, Harvey Johnson, Ward Fischer, Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield and Everett Richardson be honored in some way for their collective service of more than 75 years on the Water Board. One suggestion was a plaque at the new expansion of Water Treatment Plant No. 2 or possible renaming of the plant. Dr. Sanders thinks it is highly appropriate to honor these long time members and acknowledge what the water Board has accomplished in the last 20 years and the amount of effort that has been put in by these people. The problem is the appropriateness of naming a City facility in this way. In the past the City has refrained from doing this. Dr. Sanders is willing to write a proposal to present to the Council if that is the Board's desire. He would like to move on this quickly. "What good is it if a person is not here," he asked. Dr. Sanders thinks this should be discussed wihout Norm Evans and Henry Caulfield present. Perhaps they could leave the meeting at the time the item was discussed at the next meeting. The item was tabeled until next meeting. Other Business Mike Smith reported that the City took bids on contract 2 of our Water Treatment Plant expansion. The Engineer's estimate was $10..9 million. The low bid was $8.59 million; the apparent low bidder was J. A. Jones Co. The bids all came in low, so the project is about $3 million less than budget right now. He added that we have one more contract to let. Mr. Smith announced that the national AWWA conference is in Denver this year. The Utility has set aside funds for Water Board members to participate if they wish. Members may attend the entire conference from June 22-26 or just specify portions they wish to attend. Molly Nortier duplicated relevant portions of the brochure for the members to refer to to make a decision. The office in Denver was out of the original brochure. Please let Ms. Nortier know if you plan to attend. Analysis of Rennals' Exchange Offer Mike Smith asked, do we want to consider the offer after what we now know? Henry Caulfield stated that on its face the Rennals' offer is pretty good. He moved that the Water Board appoint a committee to investigate the desirability and the feasibility of the City's buying more Water Supply & Storage Co. (WSSC) stock, and when we aren't using the water, allow the farmers to lease the water for continued farming use, as we ordinarily do. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Caulfield went on to explain his motion. The committee would confer with WSSC and officials Harvey Johnson Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 8 and Ward Fischer as counsel. They would also discuss this matter with the regional water utilities such as Greeley, Loveland, ELCO, and Fort Collins -Loveland Water District looking towards all of them together pursuing the purchase of WSSC stock. The critical problem WSSC has seen is the question of the stock of this organization becoming under the control of Thornton as distinct from interests in Northern Colorado. We ought to examine the question if it is not in the City's interest to help to assure that control of the stock stays with interests in this general region, he proposed. Neil Grigg said we need to organize to deal with this situation. There have been a number of discussions about regional cooperation among water entities. A committee ought to be established including Water Board members and staff to seriously study the situation and make the preliminary contacts and report to the Board on a regular and continuous basis on what plan of action we will undertake to move toward a local approach to taking control of the situation. Tom Sanders thinks we need to move quickly because the time is short in the regard that we have water relatively cheap compared with anywhere on the front range. - The $4,000 per acre foot for Thornton to use WSSC water is relatively inexpensive compared with other sources in the Denver metro area. Our problem is as soon as that pipeline which Thornton is planning, is built, for the first time there will be a physical connection for moving this water to the population centers. It then becomes a free market situation. What we need to do now is take advantage of the low price of water and get control of WSSC as quickly as possible by requiring only WSSC water from developers. Dr. Sander's second point was that instead of $7 or 8 Million for water meters, let's spend it on water, he stressed. "I can't see saving water and developing conservation measures so Thornton can get more water." He contends the City should even go into debt to buy water and then lease it back to the farmers, so we maintain control in our area. "I don't want to have a sub committee to come back in six months when the contract is let on that pipeline. I think we need to make decisions today and start moving on it." Henry Caulfield said it should be noted that Thornton has some 20,000 acre-feet now. They have land area within Thornton of which 50% is undeveloped. In their own statements the amount of water they are seeking is 35,500 acre-feet of water. He has seen numbers much larger than that associated with this matter. This water may not be only for Thornton; it could be meant for a number of cities around Denver. It may well be cheaper than Two Forks. Mr. Caulfield stressed that when he proposed that we appoint a committee, he did not mean that we should delay on this; however, we can't make decisions today at this meeting. We need to investigate this thoroughly first. Dr. Grigg commented that he agrees with Tom Sanders about the urgency of this. He has followed several water battles like this in other places. He concluded that you have to be organized. You need to know exactly what you Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 10 interest in the process continually because who knows what is going to happen from one month to the next? Council had suggested to staff that within the next two or three weeks that we try to pull that kind of meeting together. They were very interested in the City becoming active as a vehicle to get these voices together; a fairly extensive list of people initially to see what their interests and concerns are and what the options are. Neil Grigg suggested a possibility that might seem attractive. He thinks it is important for Fort Collins as the largest city in the region to exercise strong leadership in this and not just react. One way to do that would be to take this meeting idea a step further, and have a big meeting where invitations are issued, where people are asked to speak, a program offered, followed with an interchange with invited participants, and at the end some kind of result. In other words, a meeting that is well designed to lead to a conclusion and a plan of action. The group that was organized could help with the planning of this meeting if Council concurred. Ray Herrmann liked the ideas presented, but his quesiton is do we have a real crisis or is this just a newspaper crisis? How many shares does Thornton have? How many shares do they have a realistic opportunity to acquire in a short term? How many shares are out there? What is our time frame? If we aren't in a crisis let's slow down and do some of these things right, but if we are, we ought to try to do what we can as quickly as possible. Neil Grigg responded that Thornton does have several options and they have commitments on a lot of water. The other side is that the obstacles they face to implement this plan are formidable. With those two factors, it is Dr. Grigg's opinion that we are in an important situation, but it is not a crisis. Henry Caulfield, from his impression, related that the reason Thornton took the route they did was because they are trying to obtain legal options on as much as they can. This is the reason that Mr. Caulfield suggested that the City needs to help WSSC see to it that they don't get legal options to too much, thus leading to majority control which they apparently haven't attained as yet. Mr. Carnahan said that perhaps a reason for organizing a meeting as quickly as possible is to try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. Ray Herrmann emphasized, "as soon as we can, even if some answers are sought on the telephone, we need to know if there is a short term realistic possibility that Thornton could attain majority control. If there is, it is a crisis; if not, all we need to do is offer a realistic alternative. Mr. Caulfield clarified that his motion stated "the advisability and feasibility" of buying WSSC shares. "Is that inconsistent with any information you have from talking with the Council?" Mr. Carnahan Water Board Minute# April 18, 1986 Page 11 answered, no, he thinks the idea was to explore those possibilities and to include a sub committee to do it. Mr. Carnahan added that the staff will be meeting with the Thornton staff to try to get a clearer understanding of the plan and what is being proposed, so Fort Collins doesn't have to rely on what they read in the newspapers, etc. Dr. Sanders added that, in his opinion, the crisis situation we face is preventing the plan for the pipeline from being consumated. The pipeline and its accessiblity by the other surrounding suburbs is the situation about which he feels a great sense of urgency. Dr. Evans restated what he had alluded to previously. This is no surprise to anybody that this is happening -- the surprise is that it is occurring today. For the past 10 years everyone in the South Platte Basin has known that this kind of an approach would be taken. There is some question "if those of us in our own basins can cut them off at the pass when they come in." We must protect ourselves to the best that we can but our water law says that water is a market property. People buy it and they have some constraints about how they can use it. The number one thing is for Fort Collins to pursue its own best interests. Dr. Sanders stressed that he is not suggesting that we try to pass rules that would prevent water from being transferred out of the basin, etc. All he desires is for Fort Colins to take advantage of the market poition we are in now; face it realistically; perhaps go into debt a bit to buy up what we need, then "let the cards fall where they may." Dr. Evans proposed the following members of a Water Board Committee: He asked Neil Grigg to serve as chairman which he accepted. Henry Caulfield was asked and expressed his willingness to serve but he would miss meetings within the next two months because of a commitment out of the country. Tom Moore was appointed and accepted but wanted to make it clear that he would be involved with the WSSC Board as the Vice President. The other member appointed was Dave Stewart who was absent and will be contacted. Neil Grigg related that this committee must interact closely with the staff. The Committee and staff need to meet to talk about strategy etc, so they can take full advantage of our efforts. Mary Lou Smith wanted to have a clarification on this issue. She believes that the public is again going to be confused about this issue. It is her understanding that we have plenty of water now for all of the development in the City, but as developers want to develop further, they must provide water. They will be developing on land that then will not have water available. Thus, our concern is not for present water needs but for further growth of the City. How can we assure the public that we have enough water for the present? Mike Smith explained that there is very little of the land that Thornton purchased that would ever be in the City. The impacts are first on the farm economy. Also, if they take water out that historically had return flows there, what impact does that have on our existing water rights? We T Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 2 agreed, before he knew anything about their plan or general location, to keep whatever they told him confidential; he was required to sign a pledge to that effect. Thus, he felt constrained not to reveal anything at the 28th meeting. The University informed Thornton that it was injudicious for the group selected to proceed with plan of studies through the University. Thornton asked if at least a plan of work could be started through some individual agreements with some key specialists. It was concluded this could be done in the best interest of the Poudre Basin by insuring that the best plans would be developed. Four of the individuals agreed to write up a scope of work, define the studies, what studies should be done and how they should be accomplished. After Thornton's plan was disclosed, the Fort Collins City Council decided that should Dr. Evans complete the plans for Thornton, that would give the appearance of a conflict, and directed Dr. Evans to either withdraw from the Thornton arrangement or resign from the Water Board. He has since withdrawn from the Thornton agreement and will remain on the Board, if that is the Board's desire. Henry Caulfield revealed that two other Board members were present at the March 12th meeting; he and Neil Grigg. Both came to that meeting completely unaware of what had occurred except that Thornton wanted to talk to them about a water study. The first thing they did was swear the group to secrecy, and they too signed a paper which warned that they could be sued for damages if they revealed the subject of the meeting. Mr. Caulfield told them, once their plan was disclosed, they had placed some of the group in a potential conflict of interest because of their membership on the Fort Collins Water Board. Mr. Caulfield said he was not involved in the agreement to do any of the studies. Neil Grigg confirmed that everything transpired just as Mr. Caulfield and Dr. Evans reported. He added that all of them were "in a state of shock" when Thornton revealed that they were purchasing Water Supply and Storage stock. Dr. Grigg wished to be on record saying that Norm Evans' intentions in dealing with the study were exactly as he has stated. He saw some possibility to mitigate this for the benefit of everyone with no other motivation on his part. Dr. Evans offered to leave the meeting as did Mr. Caulfield and Dr. Grigg if the group wished to discuss the issue without their presence. This was not the desire of the group. Dr. Evans suggested that before the conclusion of the meeting, the group needs to decide where they want to go from,here and what steps they should take. The revised summary of recommendations and a question and answers format document were distributed previously with the Water Board packets. Mike Smith emphasized that these documents were not in final form. Staff wanted confirmation that these are the directions that the members had in mind. At the last meeting the Board had discussed two documents; an action document for the Council and a question and answer format to be used for Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Caulfield suggested all matters pertaining to each topic could be discussed at the same time. You get the total picture for each area in one place; that way it reads better, he observed. Neil Grigg said it is his impression that most of these observations would disappear if a condensed summary of about one page was added to the document. Norm Evans referred to Table 4 on p. 10 which he thinks will receive a lot of attention. "Please explain what the table is supposed to tell me," he asked. Dennnis Bode explained that there are two parts to the table; the left side shows what kinds of adjustments you would make in the rates between the flat rate and metered customers in terms of percentage changes without looking at cost increases due to inflation or other factors. These are simply the cost -of -service adjustments to bring those two classes of customers into balance. The other part of the table projects what the overall rate increases will be based on the projected overall cost increases. Dr. Evans added that perhaps reading the paragraph underneath makes that point. He thinks it might be difficult for a reader to separate those two points and understand what they meant. Bill Carnahan suggested adding a column which shows how,the adjustments are related to the overall increases. Tom. Moore asked if he calculated correctly that the flat rate will increase by 38% in five years. Mr. Bode answered that with the inflation costs plus the adjustments between flat and metered, that is correct. Dr. Grigg asked what the inflation assumption is. Mr. Bode said 5% for '87 and 4% for the rest of the years. MaryLou Smith expressed that it is her understanding that the larger document will be used by Council but will also be used by those citizens who want further information. Ms. Smith contends that "we have engineers writing these and we need people who are more knowledgeable about public relations." She thinks the public will be confused and if they are confused they will not be supportive. John Scott brought up capital costs. He said Ray Anderson argued in his communications: why not spend today's dollars if they are going to be cheaper than five years from now? Did we get a good answer to that? It seems to Mr. Scott that we can relate that to Windy Gap and the Utility industry. He thinks the public may ask that question and we should have an answer. He added "that is a big selling point for going to meters in that we delay capital construction." Dennis Bode replied if we knew what inflation was going to do in the next 5-15 years, we could analyze that. "I'm not sure our crystal ball is very clear on that." Bill Carnahan explained that when you are looking on the electrical side of making a capital investment, you make it primarily by issuing debt and then you build facilities with fixed obligations to pay off that debt. You must have that revenue coming in to match the debt payments and that's where people get in trouble if they build it too early or build capital projects too big and the revenue stream isn't sufficient to pay the principal and Water Board Minute • April 18, 1986 Page 9 are doing. It is going to take a long time before Thornton gets that pipeline in the ground, if they ever do because of the legal, environmental, and financial questions they must confront. We need to be certain that Thornton is going to remain committed; that they aren't going to deter from this goal. Their goal could well include South Adams County to develop a water system for them, and Northglenn and Arvada and others. What we are looking at is Northern Colorado being treated like a Western Slope, as a source of water. We've got to be well organized to head that off and know what we're doing. It's so important that it requires the best we can give it in the way of study and organization. Henry Caulfield pointed out that, in the past, we've had good relations with WSSC but he thinks it is fair to say that they haven't welcomed the idea of the City buying more of their stock. He would assume, under the circumstances, that they would welcome an initiative on our part along the lines that he has indicated in his motion. If the City bought some, it would relieve the Company of having to buy up that much stock to keep control. Mr. Caulfield is assuming that Harvey Johnson and Ward Fischer would welcome this suggestion. Tom Sanders added, as he had suggested previously, that we only accept WSSC water from developers at this time. Is that possible? Dennis Bode said he is not sure if that approach would work too well in terms of the developers on a short term basis. Tom Sanders asked could we say for new developers? Tom Moore explained that you would have to drop the in -lieu -of payment --it would just be the water. He isn't sure the water is available. Henry Caulfield suggested this be put in the hopper for consideration by the committee, rather than deciding today. Norm Evans summarized that the group appears to be in agreement, in the sense at least that we need to take some steps. We need to see what we can do in harmony with other water suppliers in the regional sense and we need to solidify where we are. We have some exchanges and they involve Water Supply and North Poudre and we must be certain that those exchanges are solid and firm. Bill Carnahan made a comment with regard to the appointing of a committee. He related that the Council's reaction to the Thornton proposal was very similar to what is being expressed today. One of their concerns was to somehow overcome the inertia of bureaucracy and be in a position to act in a timely fashion. The Water Board meets only once a month; the Council every two weeks, and there may be things happening that will require constant vigilance. What are our options? What can we do or can't we do? As a.result of these concerns, they appointed Councilman Gerry Horak to act as a liaison between the Council, Water Board and staff who would be working on this . This group would be functioning with the ability to try to make things happen and not get "hung up in the processes." "I think that is what you are saying today." It is better to pull concerned groups together rather than have everyone going off in different directions. A sub -group from the Water Board would be effective to keep the Board's Water Board Minutes April 18, 1986 Page 12 own stock in many irrigation companies that have rights that are not very senior. If the river's impact is such that some water users downstream don't get as much water as they had, and they call these "not so senior" water rights out, that could directly impact us. This is one aspect we must be certain about. It will take considerable study and evaluation to pursue this. The issue will probably be taken to water court where it will eventually be resolved. Henry Caulfield added that there is also the fact that WSSC water is very valuable. Much of it is "foreign" water that can be "used up." A lot of this water comes from the Western Slope. There are 11 reservoirs in this system owned by WSSC which makes it a very valuable system and the question of its control is very important. Mr. Carnahan emphasized that if availabilty goes down, the prices goes up --when the price goes up the cost of development in the basin goes up. Mr. Caulfield stated that Thornton's purchase of the water can not be denied. This is the kind of water system we have in Colorado. He added that they have a plan in mind of putting their effluent back into the Platte River and pumping it up from Greeley, anjl thus making that effluent available for second users or junior appropriators. This is.•the way they hope to "cover all the bases." Ms. Smith felt more comfortable about her concerns. Those answers were very helpful, she said. Mr. Herrmann reminded the Board of Mr. Caulfield's motion with a second from Dr. Sanders. Dr. Evans acknowledged that there was a motion and a second followed by considerable discussion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion which was as stated earlier and the committee members appointed were: Neil Grigg, Chairman, Tom Moore, and Dave Stewart. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. YYI�, �Id Water Boarl Secretary