Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/15/1993January 15, 1993 3:00 - 4:45 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street .` 7i&• . -J7 ' Members Present Neil Grigg, President; Tom Sanders, Vice President; MaryLou Smith; Dave Stewart; Tim Dow; Mark Casey; Paul Clopper; Dave Frick Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer Dan MacArthur, Triangle Review Members Absent Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Terry Podmore President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Tim Dow moved that the minutes of December 18, 1992 be approved as distributed. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. The Board passed the motion unanimously. Vl�: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham distributed the snow and precipitation report and brochures explaining the District's South Platte Water Conservation Project. Mr. Bigham reported that we are 105 % on the snow water equivalent, and 104 % on total precipitation, and those are up considerably from what they were. However, the South Platte WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 2 is still at 87% and 87% in those categories. We haven't picked up as much snow on the east side, he said. Mr. Bigham said that the District's precipitation enhancement generators have been running steadily. The generators were operated about 350 hours in December. He pointed out areas on the first page of the precipitation report that have been affected by the enhancement program, and they are significantly above other reports, "so indications are that we may be doing some good on percentages," he added. Mr. Bigham picked up some information on precipitation and snow from California, and their percentages are up substantially from what they have been in the last few years of drought. He hopes that this will increase their reservoir storage, so some of the demand is taken off the Colorado River. He then directed the Board's attention to the brochures on the South Platte Water Conservation Project. A filing was made in December. The brochure describes, conceptually, some areas which are now in the engineering stage. The point of the project is to take the excess unappropriated water and re -position that water into recharge, direct diversion, and storage, whatever way it can be accomplished with the different facilities that may be available. A large part of that water comes out of the Poudre, and if the Poudre project were built, it would capture a lot of this anyway, "so it's kind of a substitute in that respect," he concluded. Dr. Grigg asked what the status of the adjudication is. It was filed on December 11, 1992, Mr. Bigham replied. Mike Smith reminded the Board that they had engaged in a lengthy discussion of the sump pump question at the December meeting. "Since then there have been a few changes to the proposed ordinance included in the Water Board packets," he said. He handed out copies of the revised ordinance which contained those additional changes. According to the background information, traditionally people with sump pumps have either discharged the water onto their lawns, onto the street, into the storm sewer, or into the sanitary sewer. Discharging the water into the sanitary sewer or onto the street is prohibited. The preferred method of dealing with sump pump water is to discharge it into a storm sewer. This solution generally works when dealing with new construction. However, for existing homes and businesses, the storm sewer solution can be very costly and impractical, which means other solutions need to be considered. WATER BOARD NIINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 3 The summary went on to say that discharging water onto the street, in some ways, makes sense. The curbs and gutters are designed to carry water, and that water generally ends up in a storm sewer. The major problem, and the primary reason the City Engineer has determined that this solution is not viable, is the safety concern which occurs in the winter when the water freezes. With regard to discharging the sump pump water into the sanitary sewer system, the major problems are: (1) using expensive wastewater treatment capacity to treat clear water, and (2) diluting sanitary wastes such that the City can not meet permit requirements. At the last Board meeting, it was suggested that if the water is only running in the summer, that people be allowed to discharge it to the street. Some members said it seemed impractical to change everybody just because of a few isolated problems. However, when staff suggested this solution to the City Engineer, he stated the following reasons why water should not be pumped into the street at any time of the year: * Ground water is unpredictable at best and it would be hard to know which properties would only pump in the summer months. * The spring and fall pumping would not be confined to warm weather. Colorado weather is so varied that icing could be a major problem in the spring and fall and become a liability for City maintenance and from personal injuries. * Pumping ground water into the street causes icing in the winter, which has been a major problem on Crestmore Place this winter. The Street Department has received many complaints about just this one property. * In the summer, the algae grows on the sidewalks, gutters and cross pans, which becomes slippery to pedestrians and bicyclists. * Pumping into the street causes premature street failures by saturating the substructure of the roadway. Because of those reasons, the suggestion from Water Board members was not included in the draft ordinance. Another change that the Board suggested is included in the draft. This refers to the property owner having to determine how much water is discharged on a peak day. It now reads: "That determination will be made by a registered engineer." That relieves the person with the sump pump of the responsibility of trying to guess what kind of peak day he will have. WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 4 Section 26-336, No. 2 now states that if "there exists no authorized stormwater facility within four hundred (400) feet of the property line of the property upon which the discharge is generated or, if such facility does exist within such distance, the requirement to connect to such facility would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant by reason of the existence of an extraordinary or exceptional physical barrier or obstruction lying between such property and such facility;" Mr. Smith explained that exceptions had to be added to this section because at times there may be obstacles between the house and the storm drain, and even if it is within 400 feet "you can't get to it." Staff also added section 6 to discourage developers from failing to construct sub -drains, or other means to prevent basements from taking on groundwater, so it becomes necessary for the homeowner or the builder to install sump pumps to keep basements dry. It says: "the applicant has not developed or constructed improvements upon the property with careless disregard for the necessity to protect such development or improvements from groundwater without utilizing the provisions of this section or has not developed or constructed improvements upon the property with either the express or implied intent to protect such development or improvements from groundwater utilizing the provisions of this Section;" Other than the changes mentioned, the document is like it was when the Board reviewed it in December. Mr. Smith said staff hopes to take this revised draft to the Council at their first meeting in February, which is on the second; the second reading will be the 16th. If passed by Council, the ordinance won't become effective until 10 days after the second reading. Mark Casey asked if the main problem is the icing or people just arbitrarily discharging into the sanitary sewer. "Actually both of them," Mr. Smith replied. He again mentioned the residence on Crestmore, which pumps a large quantity of water.' There isn't a storm drain near their house that they could discharge to, Mr. Smith explained. The homeowner looked into connecting to a drainage ditch near them, but it would have cost them about $10,000, and the neighbors didn't like the idea because the conveyance would have to cut across their properties. Dr. Grigg asked if staff has an idea of how many people would take advantage of this. "We don't have a number, but we know there are connections to the sanitary sewer system now that are illegal," he admitted. If this is passed, at least there is a provision for those to become legal connections. Before this ordinance there wasn't anything else we could tell them to do. Now they can pay to connect or discharge to a storm sewer. Tim Dow asked what their PIF would be. "We calculate it the same as the sewer PIT except that the strength component is very low," Mr. Smith replied. The PIFs could range from $1,000 to $3 or 4,000. Dr. Grigg added that they would also have to pay a monthly fee, and Mr. Smith acknowledged that they would. Mr. Dow remarked: "They're not going to do it." 0 • WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 5 Paul Clopper commented that he can't believe that only one residence is having this problem, unless none of the other neighbors have basements. If they do have basements, "they are probably illegally connected to the sanitary sewer." There are some homes in that area that don't have basements, Mr. Smith pointed out. He admitted that the Utility has not done a survey of the sewer system "to try to catch anyone discharging." Dr. Grigg asked if there was any technology that would allow us to "catch some people?" "We can use our TV cameras that are specially equipped to move in the sewer lines early in the morning and watch the system," Mr. Smith explained. Tim Dow asked if there is anything in the Code now that requires perimeter drains, etc. to be installed for new construction. "That's kind of weak," Mr. Smith replied. The City engineers are in the process of trying to update those so it is clearer and more specific about what the contractors have to do. Most of them install sub -drains. At this time, there is no clear direction as to where "those things" are supposed to go. Many are draining them to detention ponds. If everyone did that, we wouldn't have as much of a problem, he pointed out. Paul Clopper stated that with new development, contractors are able to take care of the problem during construction, whereas in the older parts of town there are a number of stumbling blocks. Mike Smith said that this ordinance is focused mainly on existing homes that have sump pumps. Dave Stewart asked what the current treatment capacity percentage is in the City from sump pumps. "We don't know about sump pumps," Mr. Smith replied. The thing we are concerned about is our percent removals in our permit, and that's okay right now. But if that gets close when we start allowing some of these connections and the sewage becomes diluted again, "we're going to have to stop them from discharging into the sanitary sewer, and that is stated in the code," he said. "If primarily one residence is triggering all of this," Mr. Clopper began, "do we need to change the code to do that, or can the City Council grant a variance or a waiver to accommodate some of these folks?" "There is no variance procedure; that's one of the first things we thought about doing," Mr. Smith responded. "Could we come up with a variance procedure instead of this?" MaryLou Smith asked. Mr. Smith said this ordinance is almost like a variance procedure. It's another option so the Council doesn't have to consider each case on an individual basis. Are the people at the Crestmore address aware of this proposal? Dr. Grigg wanted to know. "Yes, they are, and staff sent them a draft of the item in the code," Mr. Smith replied. They don't have a good idea of what their flow is yet, (they pump a large volume of water) but they are the ones who were facing a $10,000 plus bill to take care of the situation some other way, so anything less than that will probably be good news, he explained. WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, M3 PAGE 6 Paul Clopper stated that many residents don't realize what a large volume of water they pump. His firm's studies suggest, if you look at the peaks and valleys over the course of a typical year, the average daily flow could be somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 gallons a day, and peak daily flow is probably going to push double that. That is many times greater than the average 4 person per family wastewater flow, he emphasized. Mr. Smith stressed that if they are pumping 1,000 or 2,000 gallons a day, the PIFs could be between $2,000 and $5,000. Dave Stewart and Paul Clopper suggested that something like a mini special improvement district for areas near ditches where this is a problem could be a possibility. The Crestmore home is near Larimer No. 2 Ditch. Tim Dow asked how much of that ditch the City owns. Mr. Bode replied, about 40%. Mr. Dow commented that if the City owns about 40% of the Ditch, and the water is coming from the Ditch, maybe the folks that own it ought to line it, or take some other steps to mitigate the flow. President Grigg asked for a motion to deal with this issue. Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board forward this draft ordinance to the City Council with the understanding that if the City begins experiencing permit limitations, that the practice would be discontinued. Paul Clopper seconded the motion and added to the motion, "or if any of the other options for taking care of the discharge become evident in the future, the homeowners could disconnect from the sanitary sewer and take advantage of one of those options." Mr. Smith pointed out that the code allows that if there is another option in the future, they can disconnect and the City will refund the PIF. Tom Sanders was adamantly opposed to the customer tapping onto the sanitary sewer system, but he conceded there is probably no other way. Doesn't the Council have the power to override the rule in individual cases? he asked. "Not without changing the code," Mr. Smith replied. Dr. Sanders also contends that staff should find out how many illegal taps there are out there. "I have a feeling that it's a big issue and that we may need an improvement district," he added. That may be something the Water Board could look at eventually. Mr. Smith said that one of the things the ordinance does is give the City some options with which this issue can be addressed. With this ordinance, "if we find illegal connections, we can confront those folks and say if you are going to continue to do this, you are going to have to pay the bill." Tom Sanders stressed he just wants the City to be prepared for this kind of situation in the future. Mr. Smith assured Dr. Sanders that most of the new areas have addressed this problem, "so we don't anticipate any major problems in new areas," he concluded. Dr. Sanders insisted that staff try to find some way to determine what residences are illegally tied to the sanitary sewer system. Paul Clopper asked if there were any state or federal ramifications to these illegal connections. "We have worked hard for too many years to remove infiltration and inflow from the system to allow this to happen," he asserted. Mr. Smith said staff has checked with the state and WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 7 federal agencies, "and we will probably be more concerned than EPA was. They don't have a problem with the City having exceptions or variance procedures for allowing these types of situations." What they say is, "you are responsible for your permit, and if you violate your permit, you get into trouble." Dave Stewart called the question. The motion carried 6 to 0, with 1 abstention from Tom Sanders. It should be noted that Board member Dave Frick was in attendance at the meeting, but was not present for this discussion or vote. Mark Casey asked how developers and contractors are informed about this. Mr. Smith acknowledged that more education must be done to get the information out. "We found out that even our City building inspectors weren't aware of this," he added. If the ordinance is passed, information will be sent out, he concluded. Wendy Williams began by saying that staff was responding to a request by the Water Board to give an update on the Utility's Public Education Program, and also a couple of members of the Board expressed an interest in becoming more involved in the program. Ms. Williams then discussed what the Utility had done in 1992, what is planned for 1993, and some ways that Board members can become more involved. In 1992 the Utility's major emphasis, in the youth area, was on the Children's Water Festival in which approximately 1000 children participated. In 1993, festival planners hope to have 1500 children take part in the activities. Last year the Utility conducted a number of tours for young people, through both the water and wastewater treatment plants. Also, in the area of youth education, the Utility communicated regularly with a number of the teachers in the Poudre R-1 schools, and with the science administrator, looking at ways to assist them in water related programs. For years the Utility has been providing them with materials which they use in their curriculum. The Utility has also been working with the Dept. of Agriculture in preparing two agricultural readers specifically geared towards water, one for the third and fourth grade level and one for sixth and seventh graders. In terms of adult education, the Utility has prepared a number of displays and exhibits for various fairs. "We were at the Foothills Mall a number of different times," she added. The major emphasis this past year was on metering. "That was the area we decided to target since we have the volunteer program," she explained. In addition to the displays, staff have worked through the media with several highly successful articles in the Coloradoan and the Triangle Review, and have reached Utility customers through direct mailings. Direct mailings have been WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 8 sent to targeted non -metered customers to provide information about the volunteer metering program. "We will continue to do these sorts of things in the new year. At this time we don't have any additional plans in this area," she said. However, perhaps later in the year when a new customer services person is hired, "there may be some additional activities in these areas," she concluded. She went on to say that some Water Board members have expressed an interest in getting more involved in the financial arena. Neil Grigg pointed out at an earlier meeting that the Electric Board helped sponsor a rates open house where they explained the rate increases for 1993. Recently the Board was made aware of the Utility's cost of service study, which Scott Harder is working on and will complete in February. In March he will be preparing various rate alternatives, which the Board will review. In April the Utility is planning to conduct a number of open houses in different parts of the community to get feedback from the public. Staff will begin by giving the public information on the philosophy of rates, explaining different rate structures, informing them about our current rate structure, and giving them an idea of the kind of revenue we need to generate to cover our fixed and variable costs. Next, staff will get input from citizens as to what they think is an appropriate philosophy to generate the revenue we need and what they think is an appropriate rate structure. Other ideas are welcome as to how to get the word out other than open houses. Ms. Williams suggested that Water Board members may want to participate in the open houses by facilitating the meetings, taking questions and ideas, and other ways. Jim Clark talked further about his involvement in the Public Education Program, specifically related to water conservation. He distributed spread sheets that listed estimated and actual numbers of people reached with presentations, information to the media, staffed information tables, self -guided displays, brochures directly distributed, commercial audits, responses to individual information requests, and water wasting investigations. He pointed out that with activities such as the Children's Water Festival, there is overlap in the information which is just water related and with water conservation, which he concentrates on. He estimates that he spends 50-60% of his time on public education. However, that is decreasing, particularly since the Demand Management Resolution was passed last spring. Now he spends more time on policy related items and other measures separate from public education. He compared the numbers of the current spread sheet with past years' numbers. Conservation presentations have been increasing by 25-30 over the last several years. Mass media has remained about the same. Increased requests for information could be an indication of a new level of interest in water conservation by the public. Curiously, water wasting investigations have been going down. That could be weather related, since we experienced a cooler and wetter summer than normal. WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 9 Mr. Clark said that staff will be giving an update at the February Board meeting on Demand Management as a whole, which is a part of a water conservation annual report that was discussed at the Conservation and Public Education Committee meeting prior to the Board meeting. A revised copy of that report will be included in the Water Board packets. Dr. Grigg wondered if there were cooperative efforts in any other areas besides the Children's Water Festival. Mr. Clark said there is a lot of networking among some of their public information counterparts. Besides the agricultural reader which Wendy Williams mentioned, there are some regional publications that have been developed, "and I think there is a trend towards more of that," he added. Dr. Grigg related that the Colorado Water Education Foundation is going to have its first fund raising meeting at the end of January. Tom Sutherland will be the luncheon speaker. The foundation has authorized the production of a Colorado water map. He suggested that it would be good to be tied in with some of the things they're doing. Marylou Smith mentioned the composting study that the Fort Collins Water Utility is conducting. If its results show that composting aids water conservation, that will give the Utility an opportunity to publicize to a wider group, and encourage the use of composting in other communities. Ms. Smith showed the Board a very attractive Xeriscape Calendar which the Denver Water Dept. publishes each year as a means of publicizing the merits of Xeriscape. This is obviously an expensive publication, she said, but Fort Collins may want to do something like this as a future project. However, "for what we need to be doing right now, I think we are doing it," but there may come a time when we need to enhance that, she predicted. She emphasized that we must always look at what is going to make a significant difference or impact when determining what public information efforts we choosefo pursue. Wendy Williams mentioned that the 1993 Children's Water Festival will include a poster and essay contest. The winning posters and essays would be published. Tom Sanders wondered "what we are trying to do with this." Can we assess the outcomes and impacts, and does the cost justify the results? We found in our community survey that there is a definite need for conservation information, Mike Smith responded. We scored fairly low on that point. Dr. Sanders also wanted to know if there has been an increase in xeriscape landscaping since it was introduced. Jim Clark said it is difficult to assess. As far as he knows, there haven't been any studies specifically on that. "It's probably more anecdotal. As far as quantitative measurements, we will be doing that with water use, and normalizing it so the variable of weather can be ruled out. We can then track water use as a whole," he explained. The difficult part will be sorting out individual pieces like public education, etc. "At least we can tell you WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 10 with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the effects of our overall measures will be in the coming years," he added. Mike Smith pointed out that generally in our public information efforts, the Utility focuses on areas where the public has expressed a desire to have more information. Neil Grigg said there are a lot of issues that we need to be thinking about for the long range. There is evidence that all around the world people are getting more interested in their water resources, "and we are in a position where we could do a lot of good if we could develop a vision in public education in explaining the complex concepts of multi -purpose water use, and development and management. As a Water Board, since we are not a governing board, we ought to think about that as one of our main missions, and be doing something that adds value to the community," he concluded. Scott Harder commented further on the cost of service study which he is doing. With the reporting of the results of the study, he also will be presenting some comparisons, both quantitative and qualitative, by looking at some of our neighbors along the front range, and other utilities nationwide of our size. Dr. Grigg asked how the City handles press releases. Mr. Smith said each department handles its own releases, and each release is approved by the department head. Thirty-two copies are distributed to the media and key City personnel. Marylou Smith said that the Conservation and Public Education Committee stressed that it is very important how the press releases are structured for the upcoming water conservation measures. For instance, the committee is looking at zero interest loans for water improvements, but "we wouldn't want to stress that by itself, so we would include it with some more important items that have more impact," she said. She added that "we wouldn't want the community to perceive that a zero interest loan program was the main thing we were doing, when it's a very shiall part of the bigger picture." In her view, how you approach this when you are getting information out is very critical. Mr. Smith explained that when you distribute press releases in the media boxes, "you are only half way there." It takes some effort to pursue the press if you have an issue you really want them to write about. In this way, "you can walk them through the process." The Utility needs to build a relationship with the media, he stressed. On the other hand, when something negative happens, they need to know about that too. Dr. Grigg suggested that sometime the Board could devote one hour of its meeting time to a forum for reporters, "if we could get some to come." There are a number of things we can do, and we should be thinking about what would be the most productive, he said. Speaking of publicity, Marylou Smith mentioned that the educational publication of the Metropolitan Water District of southern California featured an article in their December issue about the CBT system, and our Utility Water Resources Manager, Dennis Bode was quoted in the article. WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 11 Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that in 1992 the Utility delivered 26,400 Ac-ft of treated water to City customers. With the cool, wet summer, the total precipitation ended up just under 21 inches around Fort Collins. Surprisingly, the peak day for 1992 occurred in May. Mr. Pineda said he couldn't find any other times when that has happened. Update: Joe Wright Reservoir Special Use Permit Mike Smith reported that the Forest Service has extended the Joe Wright special use permit for one month. Tom Sanders asked what is being done about the request for by-pass flows. Mr. Smith said that the Utility is waiting to talk to the Forest Service and "they aren't talking right now." In the meantime, the Forest Service has asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a four month study of endangered species that might be affected by stream flows, which means another delay of several months. Marylou Smith asked if others had seen Bear Jack Gebhardt's column in the Coloradoan on Tuesday (January 5, 1993) on minimum flows. "That was an extremely misinformed piece of writing," she asserted. Dave Stewart suggested that someone write a "soapbox" rebuttal. Dr. Grigg thinks that any time there is something in the paper that has erroneous information like that column, and could affect the Utility, the Water Board ought to think about writing a letter to the editor, or a soapbox article, to clarify the information. Although we may think that few people would take that column seriously, Ms. Smith said, there are new people in town who are deeply concerned about the environment (as we are), and it's really easy for someone to pick up on something that appears to have a pat answer and fits into someone's preconceptions about the environment. Dave Stewart didn't think we should ignore the impact of this column. "Anytime there is misinformation, someone seems to use it," he said, "and if you don't respond to it, it could become a problem, so I would strongly suggest that we respond to it." Tom Sanders asked if there will be public hearings on this by-pass flow situation. It depends on the results of the Fish and Wildlife Service study on endangered species review, Mr. Smith replied. Dr. Sanders contends that this is just as serious as the Excalibur threat was, and "we fought that tooth and nail." He realizes we are limited on what we can do on this, but he thinks we should do whatever we can, "because this is patently unfair!" Paul Clopper said the reduction in firm yield at Joe Wright, with the by-pass flows requested by the Forest Service, would be approximately 270 Ac-ft per year. Dave Frick stressed that we ought to be getting some data for ourselves. "The F.S. doesn't seem to have any data either," he added. "It's very difficult to get a gauging section in there without going through a special use permitting process," Ben WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 12 Alexander pointed out. "Can't you start in the spring when it begins to thaw out?" Mr. Frick asked. President Grigg said that the whole issue is going to require a response. We've had the Forest Service at a Board meeting to discuss the issue. There are other regional entities in the same dilemma as we are. "I think a letter to the paper is a lot more powerful than an article," Mr. Stewart insisted, "and what staff produces doesn't carry the weight of a member of the Water Board." Dr. Grigg said if the Board felt that way, he would be happy to collaborate with another member of the Board to prepare a letter, "but I would need facts from staff to do it." MaryLou Smith moved that Neil Grigg prepare a "soapbox" editorial for the Coloradoan with assistance from the staff in terms of information. Dave Stewart seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Tim Dow wondered if it would be helpful to pass some kind of motion or resolution on to City Council to ask them to take some steps in the way of public pronouncements, etc. to show their support. Mr. Dow moved that the Board send a resolution to the Council expressing its concern for the proposed regulations in the Forest Service permitting process and ask that Council direct their attention to it, and try to get the permit re -issued without those discharge restrictions. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. Dan MacArthur from the Triangle Review asked if the Board was aware that Council Member Gerry Horak addressed this at the last Council meeting. He was against the misinformation in the Coloradoan column, so Council may already be preparing a response. Marylou Smith called for the question. The motion carried unanimously. With regard to the "soapbox" article, Dr. Grigg asked staff to help draft the article and also find out if there is anything else coming from Council or the City Manager's Office so we can coordinate this. Mike Smith said that Council generally"asks staffs from different departments with more knowledge about particular subjects to draft the letters anyway. President Grigg suggested that the "soapbox" article contain our side of this in that we have a very responsible operation up there, and why this is so important to us. Marylou Smith thinks it's important that we get across the point that we too are concerned about the environment, and that what we are doing is already very environmentally conscious. Dr. Grigg agreed that we need to stress that it is not us against the environmentalists. Ms. Smith asked staff if the Council is firmly convinced about this. Mr. Smith replied that he doesn't think they have enough information to say whether they are for or against it. "I'm not sure we have enough information to give them, and as I have said a number of times, the Forest Service does not have any hard data to say there is a problem up there." Their information appears to be only theoretical at this point. Now the Fish and Wildlife Service is also involved. "We may have to go up there in the spring and summer and do our own study to determine if there really is a problem," he asserted. LJ 0 WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 13 Dr. Sanders wanted to make a motion to direct staff to begin collecting hard data as soon as possible up there. Mr. Smith suggested that staff first discuss the situation with their engineers and attorneys and see what they suggest as the best course of action. Then staff will return to the Board with some options. In any public information situation, Dr. Sanders wanted to stress to the taxpayers how much this is going to cost the City, and "without knowing specifically what, if anything, we are going to get out of it." Ms. Smith reiterated that we also want our customers to know that we are concerned about the environment, and we have already taken steps to preserve the environment up there. Committee Reports Water Supply Committee Neil Grigg will discuss later under the item "Report on 1993 Colorado Water Convention," a report on alternative water supply plans on the front range, called "Systems Integration as a Water Supply Source for the Denver Metropolitan Area." It was prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants. Dr. Grigg thinks this would be good information for Water Board members, and has asked that copies be made available to them. Legislative and Finance Committee Tim Dow reported that his committee had received a legislative update summary from Tom Gallier. He didn't see anything in the summary that was major. There is a basin of origin bill that may be introduced, and a bill concerning allowing Colorado to maintain primacy under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The implementation of a bill from last year to move the Water Quality Control Commission under the Department of Natural Resources was in the summary, and also some pesticide regulations which at some point the City of Fort Collins might be interested in. He hopes to have a more detailed report in February. Conservation and Public Education Committee MaryLou Smith said her Committee will be meeting again on February 19th, before the Water Board meeting, to review the changes in the Water Conservation Annual Report that will be sent to City Council indicating what staff is doing to meet the Demand Management Resolution requirements. That report will be included in Water Board packets, along with a draft ordinance for the Zero Interest Loan program. Engineering Dave Stewart had no report, but he said his committee would be interested in helping if staff decides to study the by-pass flows proposed by the Forest Service at Joe Wright Reservoir. Council/Water Board Water Quality Committee Tim Dow said they are waiting to hear from the Council members on the Committee to schedule WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 159 1993 PAGE 14 another meeting. Other Business Report on 1993 Colorado Water Convention Water Board Members Neil Grigg and MaryLou Smith attended the convention. MaryLou Smith said she had the impression that the Governor thinks there has been increasing confusion in the water community since the Two Forks decision. Key people decided that it was time to get together and talk about what we do now. "I became newly intrigued," she said, although there is the perception that nothing new was offered. It seemed to her that people were saying, "the water community needs to develop better cooperation, and all of us as a state need to be thinking about protecting our water from other states, especially since we haven't been using all the water that is going on to California." Ms. Smith was impressed by Greg Hobbs' speech, in which he said that we should defend the prior appropriation doctrine, that we need to provide adequate supply for both the economy and the environment, that we must pay attention to all users' rights, that sharing of transaction costs should be considered when it is a matter of changing basins, and that we need to continue to capitalize on the success we've had in sharing water by using innovative approaches. He also talked about how Colorado needs to hang on to its entitled water, and yet not shut out interested parties. She said he did a good job of summarizing what the conference was about. She continued by saying that there was considerable discussion about putting aside some of our differences of opinion about "our" water and looking at some ways to cooperate. "I became more interested in thinking more broadly about what we can do to create 'win -win' situations with the Denver metro area, and what we can do to make it work for all of us," she concluded. Neil Grigg and others were surprised by the huge turnout (400-6W people), particularly since the conference was organized at the last minute. It shows there is considerable interest in this subject, and this in light of the Article the Rocky Mountain News ran over the weekend which basically said "there is plenty of water to go around in the state; no problem." That story came out of the report by Hydrosphere which Dr. Grigg mentioned earlier. Everybody that gave talks discounted that newspaper story, claiming that it wasn't accurate. Essentially what the Rocky Mountain News did was add up the water supplies and divide by the number of people, and concluded there was enough water. They didn't take into account that "everybody was not going 0 0 WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, M PAGE 15 to share their water with everybody else." Sometimes people who write about water, don't know how the system works, he remarked. Dr. Grigg mentioned that the governor said he had learned a new term: systems integration. In the Hydrosphere report called "Systems Integration as a Water Supply Source for the Denver Metropolitan Area," they talk about how we must have cooperation, and that we need to integrate the systems in order to get the water moved from one place to another. That's where the NCWCD study and the southern pipeline come in, as we start networking and use systems integration. Gov. Romer said in his keynote address that keeping agriculture in production, providing metropolitan water supply, and solving basin of origin problems were on his list of important water related items. Another issue behind all this is that Ken Salazar is wondering if the Department of Natural Resources ought not to be taking an activist state government role in water policy and planning, especially on the Colorado River. In the afternoon of the first day of the conference, there was a brain storming session where everybody was supposed to give their best ideas about how we solve these problems. Those ideas will be published by the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute at CSU. "We'll all be able to get a copy of that," he concluded. Update on Halligan Reservoir Neil Grigg asked if there is anything new on Halligan. "We have come close to finalizing the agreement," Mike Smith replied. Southside Ditches Filing Tim Dow said the City filed their application in Water Court on the Southside Ditches. Marylou Smith asked if we would know by now if there were any objections. The process allows 60 days from filing, Mr. Dow said. Normally what happens in these cases is that most all of the interested parties file a statement of opposition just to get a seat at the table to negotiate the conditions of any proposed decree and exchanges, etc., he explained. Water Purchases? Tom Sanders asked if there have been any good water offers recently. "We have a lot of people approaching us, but there haven't been any exceptional deals," Mr. Smith replied. What is CBT going for now? Dr. Sanders asked. Currently it is $1350-$1400, Mr. Smith said. District Concerns Tim Dow asked if there has been any follow-up on the Boxelder Sanitation District. Mr. Smith related that in talking to various former Boxelder Board members and other people, we learned that they are going through a major transition process. Nearly all of their board members are WATER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1993 PAGE 16 new, and they have just gone through a dramatic rate increase. Mr. Smith thinks the best thing to do is wait for them to work through the changes and let them call us when they are ready to talk. Mr. Smith said that staff has met with ELCO, and they are doing well. The three districts are doing a study now on their water treatment plant and what it takes to run it, and the City may have some opportunities to help there. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. 7n Water Boari Secretary