Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/20/1985MINUTES Water Board September 20, 1985 Members Present Henry Caulfield, Vice chairman, Mary Lou Smith, Jim O'Brien, Dave Stewart, Bill Elliott, Tom Sanders, Tom Moore, John Scott (alt.) Staff Present Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Jim Hibbard, Andy Pineda, Ben Alexander, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Members Absent Norm Evans, Chairman, Neil Grigg, Mort Bittinger, Stan Ponce (alt.) In the absence of Chairman Norm Evans, Vice Chairman Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Henry Caulfield cited some corrections and additions as follows: On page 4, first paragraph should read, "Norm Evans asked if their analysis indicated that we don't need more storage to meet monthly demands in drought years." Also p. 4, 4th paragraph, add "to better understand it" to the first line. On page 5, 5th paragraph, add "and briefly explained the Fort Collins drought study" to the first line. Second line replace "it" with "he." Page 6, 2nd line, sentence should read: "---in essense, said that using the deviation below the mean was the acceptable index of drought." On p.7, 1st paragraph, 1st line, add "and practical" after the word legal. Last line of first paragraph, add "beforehand" to the end of the sentence. The minutes of August 16, 1985 were then approved as amended and corrected. Inclusion of City into Municipal Subdistrict of NCWCO Paul Eckman had sent a memo to the Water Board explaining the background of this issue. With his memo Mr. Eckman attached a letter from John Sayre, Attorney for the Municipal Subdistrict of the NCWCD (1/23/85), a summary of the Rawhide Water Reuse Plan, his original memo about the question (1/31/85), the Resolution of the City Council approving an Assignment to PRPA, and a copy of the Assignment. Briefly, the Conservancy District has requested that Fort Collins include the City in the Municipal Subdistrict since Fort Collins has the first use of Windy Gap water as part of the City's reuse plan. The Municipal Subdistrict requires all entities having first use of Windy Gap water to be included in the Subdistrict. The Water Board has deliberated this issue at three meetings within the past year. The Board's primary concern has been the potential of a mill levy being placed against the City of Fort Collins. Page 2 Minutes September 20, 1985 Henry Caulfield explained that after having studied this matter, especially the letter that Mr. Eckman received from Mr. Sayre, Mr. Caulfield asked Mr. Eckman to look into Sections 122, 123, and 126 of the Colorado Revised Statutes pertaining to Conservation Districts to clarify for the Board possible ramifications for the City. He said that 123 relates only to participants in the Windy Gap Project and their contractual liability. In that sense the City is protected. He explained further that the City has no allotment, having assigned it to PRPA. The City does have the right of first refusal to obtain an allotment of Windy Gap water, but it has none now. With regard to sections 122 and 126, 122 creates the possibility of a mill levy -- 1 mill on the dollar now that water is being produced; Mr. Sayre said in his letter that there was a gentleman's agreement to not levy a tax but it is not binding on future boards. The costs and expenses of the subdistrict are supposed to be borne by the allottees, but, if for some reason Platte River and the other participating cities should fail to pay according to their obligation and the District avoided payment through legal operation of law, then the District could, in order to pay its obligations, levy this one mill. Section 126 provides for even more than a 1 mill levy, if more levy is needed to cover the payment of bonds or notes with the exception of revenue bonds; Mr. Sayre verified that they are indeed revenue bonds, and thus, 126 would not apply. Mr. Caulfield affirmed that 123 and 126, therefore are of no concern to the City; 122 could, however, be of concern. Dave Stewart stated that the City's risks are so low for having a mill levy imposed and because of first use of Windy Gap water, the City ought to consent to include all of the new annexations into the Subdistrict. Henry Caulfield listed four reasons for going ahead with the inclusion: 1) We do have a contractual right to the first use of 4200 acre-feet of Windy Gap water. We would not want to contest the idea of the first use philosophy. 2) We are in a position to use at least the remaining PRPA rights going through the system as first use, then transporting it as secondary treated water to Rawhide. At this point Mr. Caulfield asked Bill Carnahan to talk about rumors that PRPA has not found secondary treated water to be entirely satisfactory. Mr. Carnahan recently talked with representatives from PRPA and they said that they consider the current arrangement to be fine and a viable alternative. They expect to continue with it in the existing plant. However, Mr. Carnahan added that we will hear about some ongoing studies at the plant to make it more efficient operationally. As far as future plans for a Rawhide II, these are the conditions: At present, the sources of power for PRPA are WAPA (Western Area Power Authority), 18% ownership of two of the units at Craig (YAMPA) and Rawhide. Now virtually all the power required by the four members is coming from WAPA, so YAMPA and Rawhide become the growth power; 150 megawatts at YAMPA and 250 at Rawhide, which means 400 megawatts to grow into. Peak demand of members is about 200 megawatts. It is probably safe to say we are looking at a 20 year situation with all things being equal. It will probably be 5-10 years before planning for Rawhide II would begin. Page 3 Minutes September 20, 1985 Second use water would continue to be considered as an alternative for subsequent units when they come. At that time PRPA would of course be looking at the costs of other forms of cooling too. He added that Platte River is in a position of having a surplus of water. They are talking about disposing of some of their CBT water. 3) The City has first right of refusal of the sale of any of the Windy Gap water. We consider this a right, how valuable that right is questionable. Given the price of water today, it is not very valuable. PRPA is probably not going to sell with such a low value for water. 4) The primary liability for Windy Gap is by PRPA and the other participants under section 123. This provides sufficient protection for Fort Collins against liability. For these reasons Mr. Caulfield proposed that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that they proceed with the inclusion. 5) A member suggested that point 5 be the equity question since only part of the City'is now included in the subdistrict, and it would be more equitable if all the City were included. Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council proceed with the request from the District to include all City annexations since 1970 into the subdistrict because of the five reasons explained previously and summarized below: 1. The City presently has a right to the first use of 4200 acre feet of Windy Gap water under its reuse plan, 2. The City wants to be in a position to use the remaining PRPA water on a first use basis free or on some specified charge if and when that comes about. 3. The City wants to keep its right of first refusal by contract. 4. The primary liability for the cost of Windy Gap water is by the participants which does not include Fort Collins. 5. The equity question since part of the City is already included. Bill Elliott seconded the motion. Henry Caulfield, Mary Lou Smith, Dave Stewart, Bill Elliott and Tom Moore voted for approval. Jim O'Brien and Tom Sanders abstained. The motion passed. Follow-up on Council/Water Board Meeting on Drought Study Henry Caulfield noted that Norm Evans sent a memo to Mike Smith stressing the point that the Board had discussed previously, which was to encourage the other area water districts to make similar studies, and further, that the City should help them and encourage them to do so. This could alleviate the dilemma of Fort Collins being the only holder of water when major droughts occur. Mike Smith announced that surrounding Districts and cities have received copies of the report and Dennis Bode has been in contact with them. needs. The arrangement has been in operation for about 25 years. The City has only called upon the water three times. During the other 22 years, the farmer has been able to go on with his farming. If the city had acquired this water permanently, it would, during each of the 22 years, have had a surplus and would have had to find a lease for the water." Mr. Caulfield cited this as a precedent case -- the only one he knows of which relates to his idea for contracting water rights, the idea he has proposed for Fort Collins. Dennis Bode related that Denver has a similar agreement in one of their basins. Tom Sanders suggested that we keep that report as a case study and Paul Eckman asked for a copy of the paper as well. The Board agreed that it is an interesting concept. Preliminary Staff Report: "Evaluation of Water Demand Management Options" The preliminary draft report which Dennis Bode and Webb Jones recently completed was distributed to Board members. Bill Carnahan introduced the report by saying that we talked about the drought study being a piece of the picture along with the rate study. "Water Demand and Management Options" uses those two pieces and takes a look at what we can do in the future, and asks what we should do in terms of programs and the thrust of the Utility. It is preliminary; it was handed out today for Water Board members to review with Page 5 Minutes September 20, 1985 these questions in mind: Have we used the right tone? Have we considered the right options? Is there enough detail? Any kind of input would be welcome. Mr. Carnahan said that the plan is to get something finalized by the end of the year. The staff has tentatively scheduled the Board's October meeting to discuss the report. These reports were also sent to the City Council today. Later on we will probably provide an opportunity for public input as well. Mr. Carnahan concluded that he was pleased with the excellent report that Dennis Bode and Webb Jones produced. Dennis Bode related that the emphasis of the report is on managing demands. Henry Caulfield asked the staff to definitely place discussion of this report on the October agenda. Out -of -City Service Requests Steve Liddell of the Fort Collins Pipe Co. wrote to Webb Jones requesting a sewer service connection to the existing 42" main on the south side of the Railroad tracks on Timberline Road. Tnis would replace the three sewage ponds they currently use to handle their wastes. They assured Mr. Jones that they would not discharge any hazardous chemicals or waste into the City sewage system. Jim Hibbard said that the staff recommends approval subject to the normal procedures for out -of -City service agreements. As an industrial user they would also be subject to pretreatment regulations. Bill Elliott asked about volumes of waste. Mr. Hibbard explained that their waste would be mostly domestic. They don't use much water in their processes. Henry Caulfield asked why they aren't requesting to be annexed at this time. Mr. Hibbard said they are concerned about zoning regulations and what they would be allowed to do on that site; yet they are willing to sign an out -of -City service agreement which includes an annexation clause; this means they agree to be annexed when asked. Some members thought that along with the Board's approval that they suggest to P & Z and City Council that they think about annexing this property. Tom Sanders was concerned about the three waste lagoons. He thinks that the stipulation of the abandoment and removal of these lagoons should be included in the agreement even though they say they will no longer be used when they connect with the City. Tom Sanders then moved that the Water Board approve the out -of -City sewer connection subject to the removal of the three ponds they currently use for waste and subject to the usual procedures for out -of -city service connections and pretreatment regulations. Henry Caulfield added that consideration be given to encourage the annexation of this area. After considerable discussion, Henry Caulfield agreed to withdraw his portion of the motion since annexation questions are not the function of the Water Board. The P&Z Board and the City Council automatically consider the annexation question for each out -of -City service request. After a second to the motion by Bill Elliott, Board approval was unanimous. The second out -of -City sewer request was from the owner of four proporties on west Laporte Ave. now on septic tanks. The City recently installed a new sewer line on Laporte Ave. This opened up an area that previously did not Page 6 Minutes September 2U, 1985 have public sewer available to them. The City immediatly received a request from the owner mentioned above to connect to the City line. These properties are totally surrounded by the City. The County Health Dept. is very pleased to have these properties abandon the septic tanks to connect to City sewer because of potential problems with the septic systems. Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board approve the connections of these properties to City sewer service subject to the usual out -of -City service agreements. John Scott provided a second. It was suggested that the City send letters to other property owners on septic tanks in that area and ask them to connect to City sewer also. Jim Hibbard explained that the County contacts these property owners and they are applying considerable pressure for them to hook on. Then, it was asked if there could be some incentive given to these people to hook on. For example, could they pay the tap fee over time? Mike Smith said that option has not been pursued. Jim Hibbard explained further that in addition to the tap fee, these property owners will be required to participate in the cost of building the sewer. The P.I.F. as currently directed by ordinance, is'payable upon application for service through a policy approved by Council many years ago. The portion of the cost that we would collect dealing with the repay on the sewer to recapture some of our capital, is payable over time. Attorney Paul Eckman verified that the City has a note lien agreement prepared for these situations. Tom Sanders asked what happens to the septic tanks. Jim Hibbard said the County requires them to basically disable and fill the septic tank with dirt. Henry Caulfield suggested that the Board approve these properties but, in the context that the Board ask the staff to cooperate and support the County in the cleaning up of this type of situation as the opportunities arise. Jim Hibbard emphasized that the City works very closely with the County Health Dept. on these. In fact they are looking at next year's project on Elizabeth St. between Lemay and Stover as an area that has numerous septic tanks. After assurances that the septic tank problem will be actively looked into, the Board voted unanimously to approve this request for out -of -City sewer Service. Staff Reports A. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode related that the City has had high water use this summer. August was a very dry month; we were about 27% above what we would normally expect. For the year we are close to the 1 in 20 type demand that we project. Instream Flow Recommendations Henry Caulfield reported that the Natural Resources Board met and discussed the instream flow recommendations and voted 9 to 0 with 1 abstention, that the Council approve the recommendations proposed by the Colorado Water Page 7 Minutes September 20, 1985 meeting, passed a resolution that recommended the Council take the position that this matter be delayed until such time that it could be considered in the light of the comprehensive plan for the Poudre River. This is also the position being taken by the Poudre River Water Users Association. Because of the different recommendations given by the two Boards, the Boards were asked to meet and discuss their differences. Originally, Roger Krempel, head of the Natural Resources Dept. suggested a meeting on Oct. 2 at 7:00 p.m, the regular meeting time for the Natural Resources Board. Henry Caulfield discovered that this was the same night as a program at CSU on the Poudre River. Incidentally, information about this program was distributed to Board members and staff. The chairman of the Natural Resources Board contacted Mr. Caulfield and suggested the Boards choose another meeting time assuming a number of people would be attending the meeting at CSU. After discussion, Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board invite the Natural Resources Board to meet on October 18 at 4:UU p.m. to discuss the Instream flow recommendations and try to reach a consensus. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. If there were no consensus, the comments from each Board would be forwarded to the Council and they would make the final decision. Mike Smith pointed out that the Natural Resources Board outlined their reasons for their action. He suggested the Water Board review these. He also reminded the Board that there may be Wild and Scenic legislation in the future. The Rockwell site is preserved, but there would likely be minimum stream flows required when built. Essentially, the recommendations from the Water Conservation Board for flows should not have an impact on existing water rights. Regarding the motion, it was brought up that the Board will be discussing the "Water Demand Options" Report on October 18 and will want adequate time. As a result, the meeting will begin at 2:00 giving the Board two hours before the meeting with the Natural Resources Board at 4:00. Following this decision, the motion passed unanimously. Tom Moore asked if the Water Board is prepared to meet with the Natural Resources Board with our arguments clearly defined. Henry Caulfield recalled that there was some opposition to the vote at the last meeting of the Water Board. The Board did not consider this on the merits plus or minus in terms of the specific vote. The members who voted for the motion merely agreed that it was desirable to delay this matter in light of the comprehensive plan for the Poudre. Bill Carnahan explained that the City Council found themselves in a situation that was somewhat uncomfortable when they were faced with two Boards on the record with opposite points of view, and they were being asked to act. In the future, perhaps the Boards can at least work together to coordinate their responses even though they may not always agree. Page 8 Minutes September 20, 1985 Dennis Bode presented some background information that he thought would help the Board understand the situation more clearly. The original legislation was in 1973 when the instream program was established and has been administered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. In 1981, there was additional legislation that gave extra protection to water rights -- saying, basically, that the instream flows would be junior to all existing water rights and practices on the rivers. The CWCB administers the program all over the state. They have about 900 segments amounting to about 6,000 miles of streams on which instream flows have been filed. Probably the major reason not much is heard about this is that there isn't much effect since these flows are junior to existing rights. Mr. Bode pointed out a table which all Board members received that showed the proposed flows for the different stream segments. The main flows that could potentially affect us are on the the main stem of the Poudre. Additionally, in 1978 they appropriated some of the instream flows on parts of the South Fork Basin. Henry Caulfield interjected here that he didn't recall this appropriation ever coming before the Water Board. Dennis Bode said he couldn't recall if it had. At any rate, at that time there was an appropriation of 10 cfs on the upper South Fork and 15 cfs on the lower part of the South Fork. The proposed segments now are on the main stem of the Poudre and also on some of the tributaries, mostly on the north side of the main stem. The main proposals on the main stem of the Poudre are 20 cfs from Joe Wright Creek to Sheep Creek, 38 cfs from Sheep Creek to the South Fork, and 55 cfs from the South Fork to Poudre Park. Mr. Bode projected on the screen a table which showed some of the historic flows at the Canyon gage. He chose three types of years for mean monthly flows; a dry year, a wet year and an average year. Mr. Bode made it clear that if the flow indicated is not available, the instream flows would be the natural flow. He also pointed out that Fort Collins diverts its water upstream from that gaging station. When we get into the irrigation season and the high water use, normally the flows are much higher than 55 cfs and since all the diversions are down stream from that point, there really isn't a major inpact on the existing water users. Tom Sanders asked about future planning such as for Rockwell. Are our rights established so they would preclude any minimum flow? Mr. Bode responded as far as storage goes he thinks that is true, but as far as obtaining permits to actually build it, they may indeed require some kind of minimum flow. Page 9 Minutes September 20, 1985 Tom Sanders also asked what if you wanted to fill a reservoir. Mr. Bode said there could be times when that could have some effect if it is a junior decree above our existing conditional decree. Then it might take some water but it would probably be fairly minor because most storage occurs in June when there are high flows. Mike Smith emphasized that storage can not be used to make up minimum stream flows. Bill Elliott contends that this discussion indicates that we just don't have enough information to make a recommendation. Other members concurred and said that this was precisely why they voted as they did at the last meeting. Dennis Bode explained that there are criteria that the Water Conservation Board uses for the 900 different segments in the state. They have a program established for how they determine those flows. They will select a segment, go into a stream and measure the stream cross section. They have a computer program that determines the simulated flow. They try to come up with a minimum stream flow that meets all of the following criteria or at least two of them: (1).A mean depth for streams less than 20 feet wide of 2/10 of a foot and for streams wider than 20 feet they want the depth to be 1/100 times the width. (2) A wetted channel perimeter of 50% of the bank full perimeter. (3) A velocity of 1 foot per second. This program is standarized to calculate these figures. The legislation in 1981 came about because of the concerns of water users and concerns for water rights. Thus, they tried to make sure that existing water users would not be injured by this program. Bill Elliott asked if the CWCB is the only entity that can appropriate waters under the statutes cited in the Natural Resources Board memo. Henry Caulfield confirmed that they are the only ones that can do that. Jim O'Brien commented that he received a memo from the National Wildlife Federation indicating that the State Engineer of Nevada recently sidestepped a lawsuit that was brought against the state for not proceding with their minimum stream flow water rights by appropriating the water as a minimum stream flow. Mr. O'Brien will bring this memo to the next meeting. Jim O'Brien stated that the proposed values of 55 and 28 cfs have been recommended years ago. He has seen them for a long time. As he recalls, they were mentioned when the Forest Service was writing the EIS's on the Wild & Scenic River classifications. These are values that have been looked into by the aquatic biologists and have, he thinks, been accepted at this point. Mr. Caulfield asked if the record shows, as far as we are concerned, that these are numbers that were recommended by the Wildlife Division to the CWCB and the Board accepted them. Mr. Bode confirmed that what we have in front of us are the recommendations from the Division of Wildlife. The Water Conservation Board has accepted them for purposes of comment. Final action is scheduled for their November board meeting. Page 10 Minutes September 20, 1985 Other Business Jim O'Brien ked the staff to look into the out -of -city sewer rate structures. Mike Smith said that this is part of the wastewater rate study that is currently underway. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m. Water Secretary