Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/28/1986March 28, 1986 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, John Scott, Jim O'Brien, Dave Stewart, Stan Ponce, (alt.), Ray Herrmann (alt.) Staff Present Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guest Tim Buchanan, City Forester Media Mark Radtke, KCOL Members Absent Marylou Smith, Tom Sanders President Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed; Minutes Ray Herrmann pointed out on P. 9, last paragraph, line 3 to change the worn "money" to "meters." The minutes Were approved as corrected. Xeriscam Presentation Tim Buchanan, City Forester and member of the Xeriscape Committee, was introduced and welcomed. He used slides to show the Water Board how the concept evolved, examples of what is not Xeriscape and examples that incorporate all or parts of the seven principles of Xeriscape. The Xeriscape concept was introduced in Denver in about 1980 where the term Xeriscape was coined. Xeriscape is defined as creative, attractive landscaping that uses less water. the term was derived from the Greek Xeros meaning dry. The first Xeriscape demonstration garden was constructed on the grounds of the Denver Water Department during those first years. In 1983, a group of public and private people in Fort Collins formed a committee for the purpose of developing a Xeriscape program for Fort Collins. The committee selected a site for a demonstration garden, wrote a proposal for it and eventually funding was granted in 1985 by the City Council for a 1/3 acre site on the south side of City Hall. Page 2 Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 Mr. Buchanan explained that the reason for pursuing the principles of Xericsape is that water use for landscaping in this semi -arid region is excessive and can vary from 30 to 50% of the total water used. People who make a real commitment to Xeriscape can save about 30% on their water use. A more realistic goal, however, is from 5-10%. Mr. Buchanan emphasized that Xeriscape is not rocks and cactus; it is very attractive and creative. There is much emphasis on the visual and functual use of the landscape, and it observes the ecological requirements of the plant. Another misconception about Xeriscape is that it calls for the elimination of blue grass because blue grass requires the most irrigation in the landscape. Blue grass is incorporated into the Xeriscape landscape but only in the most visible and most heavily used areas. The seven principles of Xeriscape are: * start with a good design * Improve the soil * Use mulch * Reduce turf areas * Choose low-water demand plants * Use a zone irrigation system which groups the plants according to their water requirements *• Practice good maintenance Mr. Buchanan pointed out that everyone will not use all seven principles. However, any one of those will give an appreciable reduction in irrigation of the landscape. Before he explained each of the principles in detail, he told the group about how nature governs what we can successfully grow in our area, based on climate, precipitation, etc. We need to select plants that are adapted to our climate situation. That doesn't ne cessarily mean native material, but plant material that cones from an area that would have a similar environment to what we have. As a general rule, we haven't been doing this. Xeriscape reduces your water use because you are working with nature instead of against it. Xeriscape also affects the way we maintain landscapes. There are fewer irrigation, mowing and maintenance requirements once it is established. Mr. Buchanan then went into each of the seven principles in more detail. He informed the group that the Fort Collins Xeriscape Demonstration Garden will be started very soon. The first phase will be the hardsurfacing such as sidewalks, retaining walls, etc. which will be done by contractors. The City will provide the landcape materials and plants (80% have already been donated by local businesses interested in the project). Private groups from local landscaping firms will install donated irrigation equipment, and donate their labor for the actual planting of the garden. When the garden is completed, an education coordinator will be hired who will be responsible for all phases of the Xeriscape program including irrigation and water conservation in general. "We want to promote the concept in the community with the cooperation of the 'green' industry in the area," he stressed. Norm Evans asked how much water we expect to save with Xeriscape in Fort Collins. Mr. Buchanan responded that, at this point, it is somewhat Page 3 • • Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 speculative -- perhaps 5-10%. Dr. Evans also asked roughly what percentage of households are anticipated to use Xeriscape. Mr. Buchanan said that he would like to think that 30% of the single family homes would have some aspect of Xeriscape- after a five year period; particularly the ones with new homes which would require total landscaping. Tom Moore asked if the City was planning to take a leadership role by redoing some of the parkways and medians and other areas. Mr. Buchanan said yes Parks & Recreation is certainly talking about renovating landscapes and building new Xeriscape type landscapes for new areas. Dr. Evans asked what kind of planning is there for monitoring the effectiveness of Xeriscape. Mr. Buchanan answered that perhaps one way is to have annual award programs for people with Xeriscape landscapes as they do in the Denver area, and to do an analysis of what the square footage is, how much is in blue grass, mulch area etc. and monitor that use very carefully. That is what Denver does so they can ccmpare that usage with the average that they have. We could also do some random sampling of yards as well as surveys which would indicate how many yards have actually incorporated some of the Xeric ideas. We can keep data on how many people tour our garden, with a questionnaire that they fill out as they do so. There are many things that can be done. Norm Evans contends that promotion of the concept really doesn't concern the Water Board as much as ]mowing how much water can be saved. The bottom line becomes, "is it worth it?" You could say that citizens will ask this question with some justification. If the City is promoting this concept the question is what is the motive? Is the motive commercial? Is the landscape industry promoting this? Or is it really going to save water and thus result in a real value to the City? You will need to have answers to those questions. Mr. Buchanan responded that they do have answers to those questions. At this point we can't perform the detailed calculations on water savings, but the data is there to do it, he said. Dr. Evans pointed out further that the City withdraws about 3% of the water in the Basin and consumes 40% of that and returns the rest to the River. If you say Xeriscape would reduce the City's use by 5%, is that enough "to make any difference to anybody?" Mr. Buchanan answered that he is not a water engineer and would have to turn that question over to those who are. Mr. Buchanan asked if the answer to the question, "does it make any difference to anyone," would be the same in the future. Dr. Evans stated that somebody should be able to answer that question. Jim O'Brien asked what the best source is for Xeric type plant lists. Mr. Buchanan said his office and Molly Nortier said she has lists also. Mr. O'Brien suggested that we make them available. Mr. Buchanan said that he brought three handouts to distribute, one a City of Fort Collins Landscape guide, with lists of plant material, their watering requirements, etc., a publication on the Xeric principles produced by EDAW, and a landscape and irrigation brochure. Dr. Evans thanked Mr. Buchanan for his fine presentation and said the Board would be interested in further updates. Page 4 Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 A summary was distributed to Board members at the last meeting for their review in anticipation of comments and recommendations at this meeting. At the last meeting the Board talked about the possibility of having two separate publications; one an action document and the other a public information document. Tom Moore asked if we are going to look more closely at the rate structure. Mike Smith said the current recommendation is to use the existing meter rate structure and make modifications in the flat rate structure that was suggested in the report. It was the intention of the staff to avoid getting into a complex rate structure at this time that people would not understand and that may be hard to administer. Mr. Moore is more concerned about the fixed and variable revenue coming into the Department. Mr. Smith said that Dennis Bode and Webb Jones have done some analyses on that, such as; if you install X number of meters per year and a certain water use pattern is assumed, what affect does that have on revenue and rates? Mr. Smith added that the Utility is concerned about that also. Mr. Moore asked, are we going to have a fixed rate and a variable rate? Mr. Smith answered, there would be a base charge and a commodity charge. Mr. Moore is also concerned about what happens if we don't meet the expected growth rate. Norm Evans said he received a report recently from the Chamber of Commerce saying that Fort Collins isn't going to grow very much. They don't project an actual growth rate, however. our report uses about a 3% growth rate. Henry Caulfield pointed out an organizational change on p. 5 of the report regarding the system operators; he thinks that should be in a separate section on staffing requirements. When each of the funding situations is discussed, put the funding and the other material together, he suggested. Norm Evans pointed out another editing correction on p. 6, 2nd paragraph, "Utilities Contributions not known at this time." He thinks that leaves it a little vague and should be looked at. Henry Caulfield thinks that staff should divide the report into an action document and a public document. His thinking is that a question and answer type of approach where you zero in on the key questions from the public's point of view, would be acceptable. The summary report could be the action document in some sense. Ray Herrmann thinks we need to pay particular attention to the beginning. He believes the Water Board has not really agreed, at least not unanimously, that these measures will specifically do certain things. He added, the group agrees on the equity question but not on the savings in water, equipment costs etc. Page 5 • • Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 Jim O'Brien asked, when this is actually presented to the Council, what is the Board member's individual responsibility as far as supporting this document? Is is possible for a Board member to go and make a presentation as a concerned citizen? Norm Evans stated that each Board member has a right to present his views as a private citizen. He added that there could be a question as to whether the Board even endorses the staffs report. Dave Stewart stressed that if a Board member speaks at a Council meeting, he must state that he is speaking as an individual and not for the Water Board as a whole. At the work session, a Board member may also speak as an individual and would probably have more impact. Dr. Evans commented that the hope is that the Board is in general agreement, but that doesn't mean the members always will be. Staff Reports Mike Smith reported that staff included two informational items in the Board's packets; one was an overview on the City's Water and Wastewater Utility system and the other was a memo on "Poudre River Opportunities." The former was prepared for the Council to provide them with information on various issues that may impact the city's Water and Wastewater Utility system. Staff thought it would be an interesting summary that may be helpful in the Water Board's future discussions of policies and issues. Foudre River Opportunities is an area in which it is hoped the Utility will Participate. Mr. Smith asked for a reaction from the Board on the idea. Linda Burger, Environmental Specialist, proposed the idea and composed the informational memo. The initial reaction from the Council has been positive. Henry Caulfield wished to address an item from the first document on the issue of Federal Reserve Rights. Is this a standard concern in the Western states or does staff have something specific in mind by including this? He was particularly struck by the statement: "The Federal Reserve Rights issue will more likely have an adverse impact on operations of Joe Wright Reservoir." He asked what staff has in mind there. Mr. Smith responded that if the Federal Reserve Right is such that it is declared as senior to our storage right in the reservoir, it could impact our storing of water in the reservoir and our releases out of the reservoir. Mr. Caulfield asked the date of the City's storage right. The storage right is quite recent. Mr. Caulfield also asked, "Would we also be asserting water shed values or incidental uses up there?" He can't imagine anything that would be very serious unless someone wanted to build a city up there and the Forest Service agreed. "Why are you putting weight on this," he repeated? Mr. Smith explained that they want people to be aware of it. There has been discussion of some of the concepts behind whether the right of what is naturally in the stream should be considered the right and that is a lot of water. Mr. Caulfield countered, "That is not the purpose of the Forest Service, to have a natural river; this is not the point you would go into law cases with." Page 6 Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 Stan Ponce explained that the Forest Service purposes clearly are not all of the natural flow. They are only claiming that amount necessary to secure favorable conditions of water flow. Furthermore, their policy has been to grandfather in valid existing claims across the board. Their reserve right, for all practical purposes, will have today's date. Norm Evans commended the staff for the excellent summary document which he appreciated very much. On p. 5 under Northern Colorado Water Conservany District in reference to Potential issues, second paragraph: The policy is that the NCWCD will not approve a transfer of ownership of CBT water to a municipality if said municipality has a water supply that exceeds two times their annual water demand. Dr. Evans didn't realize they had that policy; it could be quite a detriment to the City in acquiring CBT water. Mr. Smith agreed that it is. When the City purchased the CBT water last year, the District wanted to review the City's water supply. City staff convinced them that the City's water supply is less than twice our demand, and they eventually approved it. Dr. Evans asked Mr. Bode if they took into account the reliability of the City's supply. Yes, he said, that was part of the discussion. Dr. Evans went on to say that on p. 6 with regard to Windy Gap and annexation, is that now not an issue since the Board has already yielded to that? Mr. Smith responded, that the City Council has not yielded to it yet. Attorney Eckman added that there is opposition to the requirement. John Scott drew attention to the NCWCD segment regarding charges. How much does the City pay to the District for maintenance of reservoirs, etc.? Mr. Bode explained that there are several charges: The first 6,000 units of CST water is charged at $1.50 per unit and the remaining 5,500 units is $10.50 per unit. There is a separate charge that usually runs about $20,000 per year that is intended to maintain Horsetooth and the outlet -- the winter operation part of it. Mr. Scott asked if they have said anything about increasing that. Mr. Bode replied that they are currently doing a comprehensive rate study which is supposed to be completed within the next few months. Mr. Scott asked if they will eventually charge the City for the study being done on the Poudre Basin. Mr. Bode said that it is basically being paid for by the Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Mr. Scott said there are two separate studies -- the state agency is doing one and the District is responsible for the second. As Mr. Bode understands it, the money for the District study is coming from the firm that is performing the marketing analysis to determine the potential for power on the project. They apparently have provided the upfront money for that study. Mr. Caulfield commented that their main source of funding is the tax we all pay on our property, so charges are not their main source of income. Mr. Smith invited the Board to ask Ms. Burger any questions on the Poudre River Opportunities memo. To quote the first paragraph of the cover letter for the memo: "There is much current debate on the future of the Poudre River flowing through Fort Collins. Almost everyone would agree that the condition of the river environment cannot continue to deteriorate and steps should be Page 7 • • Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 taken to turn the river into an asset for the camminity in terms of recreation potential. The staff of the Water Utility has been giving some thought to the opportunities for involvement in this effort and have come up with some very good ideas. In a nutshell, what we are considering is the use of minimum stream flows as a way of meeting future discharge permit parameters and in so doing saving the citizens of Fort Collins several millions of dollars." Further details of the plan are explained in the memo. Jim O'Brien asked if the River through the City is too warm to have a trout fishery. If that is true what would stream flow have to be in order to provide an acceptable water temperature? Mr. Smith admitted that we don't have the answer to that yet; that is one of the studies that would have to be done. Linda Burger concurred that an analysis would have to be done to detemine the kind of flow you would need to support a trout fishery. Given the low flows we experience now, the temperature often gets too warm for trout, particularly Martinez Park downward. However, if you increase the flow and maintain a flow you are also going to decrease the temperature. We would have to determine how much flow would be required to maintain a certain temperature. Henry Caulfield asked about a similar project in Boulder. Ms. Burger said she looked at their project and what they have is a $2 1/2 million project which includes improvements to the habitat, pocket parks, bike trails, and purchases of land along the river. This is different from the plans invisioned in Fort Collins. Boulder has created 31 pools for trout on one mile of Boulder Creek. They have recently stocked their first round of fish and are having problems with the Division of Wildlife on fishing restrictions. Boulder Creek is a different situation because they tried to design a habitat improvement that would make the best possible use of the flow that already exists. They have actually only guaranteed 1 cfs. Henry Caulfield explained that a number of years ago IBM gave Boulder water in order to maintain a flow. That must be irnolved in this somehow. Ms. Burger said they have the potential of up to 3cfs and apparently the commitment of 2cfs is not firm; totally commited they have only lcfs. Tom Moore asked where the $2 1/2 million came from. Ms. Burger said it was a combination of Parks and Recreation, the Transportation and Planning Departments, plus some lottery funds through Parks & Rec. Stan Ponce asked about the portion of the Poudre River below the Lincoln St. Bridge. It appears to be a mess; channelization, bulldozing, etc. Ms. Burger achknowledged that there are a couple of sections as have been pointed out that have been badly damaged, but overall, the Poudre is in substantially better shape than Boulder Creek — the river bed itself as well as the riparian vegetation. In Boulder they built right up to the edge of the stream, which gives them a lot of work to do. Tom Moore, as a member of the Poudre River Trust, is enthusiastic about anything the City can do. However, he thinks we may have somewhat of a public relations problem with endorsing a metering prim and in the same breath enhancing the stream flow through the City. How much water do you need for the project to decrease pollution and support a trout fishery, he asked. Page 8 Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 Mr. Smith said those studies have not yet been done. We have the data now. Dr. Keith Elmund, Environmental Services Manager with Water Utilities, is working on that. Mr. Moore repeated that we could have a P.R. problem. Fishermen and kyakers, for example, will love it, but gardeners may object and there are more of them. Mr. Smith admitted that it could be controversial. Mr. Caulfield asked if there was any way you could make an exchange for that water. Mr. Smith said it could be possible. Mr. Moore thinks that changing the point of diversion could be costly. Ray Herrmann asked what the minimum stream flow is now. Ms. Burger replied 0. Flows that are used for the discharge permit are .9cfs at Wastewater Plant No. 1 and 0 at Plant No. 2. Stan Ponce asked why turn that portion of the River into a trout stream? Mr. Smith explained that the City is not in the business of turning streams into trout fisheries, so as a Utility we are looking at it in terms of having an expensive problem with our wastewater discharge. We can go to tertiary treatment, land treatment -- several options. One option is dilution; that is an option that could become most cost effective. The side benefits of it may be to provide flow in the river that other folks may take advantage of; such as Trout Unlimited, Poudre River Trust, etc. He emphasized that the Utility is not in the business of restoring rivers. Working together with others may have benefits, he added. Mr. Caulfield recalled a proposal in the past of providing more water at a cost of about $10,000,000 to create a steady flow. It was dropped at that time because it was thought to be too expensive for the benefits. He suggested that perhaps those records could be researched. Ms. Burger explained that that scheme was predicated on going out and purchasing the water; not the kinds of arrangements we are talking about. Ms. Burger added that we are thinking about water that we currently lease or rent. Mr. Caulfield countered that that water is being leased and rented because we don't use it yet. Mr. Smith stressed that the motivation to do it would be that it is cheaper than some of the other alternatives for the treatment of wastewater. Norm Evans summarized by saying that this idea is one we would all endorse and the Board encourages the staff to pursue it. Jim O'Brien commented that the thought of exchanging water for points of diversion, allowing it to flow through the City so downstream users can take it out — does that have merit? Ms. Burger said that she discussed it with Dennis Bode and they concluded that there was enough of a chance of that being workable, that it is worth pursuing. Dennis Bode added that the problem is once you get below Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2, there tends to be enough return flow that there may not be enough people that would want to use it. There are some limitations but it is an idea worth looking at. Dr. Evans wondered if Ms. Burger could elaborate any further on the storm sewer point source regulations already promulgated. Where is that in the Page 9 • • Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 water quality scheme? Mr. Burger responded that EPA passed regulations sometime in 1985 which require that storm drainage be treated as point sources rather than non -point sources. EPA had somewhat of a false start at a Program to begin gathering information on the storm sewer systems throughout the country in order to begin permitting them as they do wastewater discharges and ran into some difficulties. They have now placed a deadline of the end of 1987 as a point in time when storm drainage must be regulated as a point source. The details of the operation are not very clear yet. Other Business Dr. Evans asked if there is anything new on the Six Cities Agreement. Dennis Bode replied that the agreement was sent to the City Council after the Water Board looked at it and it was approved by the Council. Now they are in the process of circulating the agreement among the parties involved to get signatures of those that have approved it. Henry Caulfield asked Paul Eckman to explain what problem the City Council has with the Water Board's recommendation regarding inclusion of annexed land in the sub -district. Mr. Eckman said after the Water Board's approval was received, the item was scheduled on a preliminary basis for City Council consideration. Mayor Rutstein had asked to hold off on it because she felt that there was a consensus of the Council that would not support it. At that time Mr. Eckman called the District's attorney and Larry Simpson and expressed the City's concerns that we felt that enough of the City was already in the District to cover the minimal amount of Windy Gap usage we would have. At that time both of then agreed. However, when they talked later with their people, they returned with a totally different opinion which was that John Sayre's early opinion still held that the City was required to be entirely included in the sub -district. Perhaps it is wise for us to wait and see what emerges later. There is a possibility however, that it might take a court decision in the long run. Mike Smith reported that staff received a letter that morning from Duane Rennels of which Water Board members received copies at today's meeting. As reported in the newspapers in recent weeks, Mr. Rennels is buying up Water Supply and Storage stock. Mr. Bode had received an inquiry from Rex Story asking about the City's Water Supply & Storage interests. On Thursday, staff had a meeting with Mr. Story and Mr. Rennels. Staff informed then that the City was not interested in selling them any of their Water Supply stock. The City would only be interested in a trade if it was an attractive deal. If there was something worth considering the staff would take it to the Water Board. Friday morning they came into the office with the deal described in the letter. Mr. Smith said it looks on the surface like they want to trade about 1 1/2 to 1 ratio which translates to their giving us 1 1/2 acre feet to every acre foot we have. It looks attractive. Dr. Evans =m1ented that Water Supply and Storage water is some of the Grand River water which is reusable and very valuable. Mr. Smith agreed but he related that one of the stipulations of the Water Supply and Storage Co. is that the City can not reuse the water as an individual stockholder. Mr. Smith concurs, nevertheless, that WS&S water is very valuable and, of course we are not eager to get rid of it, but in a business sense when it means about Page 10 Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 $200,000 "in your pocket," you almost feel you should consider it. Dr. Evans stressed that WS&S is a pivotal irrigation Co. in its location as well as in other ways — it is pivotal as far as this basin is concerned. There is so much exchanging and it is such a key in water supply that we ought to be protecting that interest on behalf of the City. Henry Caulfield moved that the staff take no action at this time, but that they examine this matter thoroughly and report back to the Board. Following a second from Stan Ponce, the motion carried unanimously. Norm Evans reported that Jack Neutze, the River Commissioner commented at a recent meeting that the City needs to discuss augmentation plans and their acceptability as related to the Anheuser-Busch water. Mike Smith said staff was disturbed that he made that inaccurate statement at a public meeting. He inferred that there was a problem with the Fort Collins augmentation plan -- we do not have an augmentation plan. We have a reuse plan. Mr. Neutze needs to work that out with A B's attorney and engineer, etc. He also needs to meet with Dennis Bode and Andy Pineda to get an accurate picture of what is actually occurring - Dr. Evans asked Mr. Bode to explain the A B augmentation plan. Mr. Bode related that A B has a consultant, Leonard Rice Water Engineers, which is looking at that plan. The reason the plan is necessary is because of the land application part. They need to augment the stream to account for that additional consumptive use. They are looking at some options, the main one being the North Poudre Irrigation Co. In an analysis they have looked at where the water comes from which is mostly North Poudre, Water Supply and Storage Co. or CET water. They have identified those parcels of land where that water has come from for the analysis of what happens to the stream. Most of it is downstream from Fort Collins. From that they have determined how much water would be needed to keep the stream whole etc., and have proposed a plan involving North Poudre Irrigation Co. and Fossil Creek Reservoir and possibly some other water from North Poudre. The idea would be to release water from Fossil Creek reservoir at an appropriate time to maintain the stream. They are now in the process of reviewing that plan with NCWCD and the Poudre River Water Users. John Sett reminded the Board that last meeting they talked about the Board of Directors of the Municipal Subdistrict and questioned whether they were require to be the same as the main Board. We wanted Paul Eckman to nswer that question when he was present. He is here today. Paul Eckman said he didn't pursue that in particular but he did investigate legislation that might be pending. There is a statute in El Paso County that allows for the election of Board members rather than have the Board appointed by the District Court. Rep. Ron Strahle is working on a bill that would change the legislation to allow the County Commissioners to appoint the Board members rather than District Court Judges. Mr. Eckman can't answer if the sub -district Board has to be the same as the parent board. Dennis Bode related that in looking back at the decree that first established the Subdistrict, it states that they would be the same. page 11 • • Water Board Minutes March 28, 1986 Since there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Water Board Secretary