Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/19/1992WATER BOARD M NUTES June 19, 1992 3:00 - 5:05 P. M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Council/Water Board Liaison Loren Maxey - 482-1202 Staff Su000rt Person Mike Smith - 221-6681 Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, MaryLou Smith, Dave Frick, Dave Stewart, Paul Clopper Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Tom Gallier, Molly Nortier Guests Gene Schleiger, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent Mark Casey, Terry Podmore, Ray Herrmann (all excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes MaryLou Smith moved, Dave Frick seconded her motion, and the Water Board unanimously approved the minutes of May 15, 1992 as distributed. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Ups ate Gene Schleiger apologized for the absence of a Northern District representative at the last two Water Board meetings. "We have been extremely busy," he said. Mr. Schleiger brought packets for the Board with streamflow and reservoir storage figures and weather data as of June 18th. The comparisons on the first page were for 1990, 91 and 92. "As you know, we haven't had much moisture," he began. He pointed out that streamflows over the last three years have been down significantly on every one of the east slope tributaries, and on the west slope, it's the same story. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 2 There hasn't been much difference in the project deliveries other than today and yesterday, he continued. The District is really beginning to receive orders for water. People apparently are anticipating that the rivers are going to go down. On the north end out of Horsetooth, most people have taken their carryover from last year, "and have run that." In the south end out of Carter Lake, most of the carryover from last year is still there. "If it stays the way it is, we anticipate making some fairly substantial deliveries in the next week," he stressed. He added a few numbers in the chart under project storage that hadn't been included. If you look at Granby, he said, it is about 5,000 ac-ft better right now than last year, but that's a little depressing when you consider the District pumped a significant amount of Windy Gap water into it last year for rental. There are also about 14-15,000 ac-ft of additional Windy Gap water that have been pumped this year. "Unfortunately, we're not gaining," he concluded. Page 2 of the handouts showed active CBT storage at the end of the water year for the years 1960-1992. For this year, with a 60% quota, the District projects that they will be ending the year close to what the average has been. Page 3 showed the precipitation within the NCWCD for April and May in inches. It also showed active storage comparisons for May 1-June 1 for District facilities and private ditch companies. "The bottom line is we're at 98% of average for storage," he emphasized. The next three pages contained some Fort Collins weather data the District collected. The Northern District is still anticipating some sort of storage project on the Poudre. The last page of the handouts showed how much water the District has released from Lake Granby and Willow Creek from 1962-1986 in a controlled by-pass mode. "When we talk about a controlled by-pass, we are not talking about the mandatory fish releases we have to make," Mr. Schleiger explained. In years when there have been high flows of water coming in, the District tries to release water earlier to minimize an uncontrolled spill over the spillway of 4 or 5,000 cfs. When we look at the total number, we have about 900,000 Ac-ft of water that we have passed in that period of time, he said. In a little more recent perspective, if you look at the years from 1983-1986, there were right at a half million Ac-ft of water that went on down the Colorado River from Granby and Willow Creek because there was no place to store the excess water. Mr. Schleiger said that the reason for including these figures, is to show that if a storage facility on the Poudre were available where that water could have, through exchanges, been stored over here, "it would have been a great help in years like we are going through now." MaryLou Smith wanted to know the number of Ac-ft of CBT water delivered each year to its users. "On the average we deliver about 245-246,000, so this would be about three years worth of water," Mr. Schleiger replied. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 3 Tom Brown asked if the system would have been able to physically handle the transfer of the water in the time frame the District is dealing with. "Obviously, I think there would have been a bind at certain times," he Mr. Schleiger acknowledged. It's going to take more of a planning operation, he continued. Currently everything is directed around having Horsetooth and Carter Reservoirs full by the middle of May to June 1st, and keeping enough water in the diversion system through the winter months to keep the power generations going. If we had an additional 200-300,000 Ac-ft of storage during the winter period, we would have the flexibility to bring a larger amount of water through. During the summer months, it is difficult, because we are usually running at near capacity. Neil Grigg asked what are some of the things that have kept the District so busy the past few months. A number of legislative commitments for one, but water quality has been a major issue, Mr. Schleiger responded. "At last night's North Front Range meeting, the District discussed a concern about a water quality issue that is coming out of the Health Dept. Water Quality Control Division. The District "has worn the black hats" ever since the Colorado Triennial review a year ago, when we challenged their decision to designate the lakes over there as high quality without designating the Fraser River the same. If the District hadn't challenged it, "the minute we turned on the pumps coming out of the Fraser River and pumped water into the higher quality reservoir, we would have been in violation," he emphasized. The Water Quality Control Division didn't appreciate the District challenging them and getting the designation overturned, "so we haven't been on very good terms since then." The Colorado River Conservancy District also has civil law suits filed against the Commission for inappropriate decisions they felt were made in some of the lower Colorado River areas. Mr. Schleiger went on to say that the Water Quality Control Division is pursuing what they call a Colorado Water Quality Forum, which is a facilitated retreat meeting in which groups are able to discuss their differences and attempt to reach agreement on some procedures. This would help to prevent lengthy and costly legal battles that have generated hard feelings in the past, he said. Mr. Schleiger said he agrees wholeheartedly with the concept of this meeting. "We need to sit down and discuss some of these issues." The problem is that some of the facilitators are carrying a price tag of between $50-75,000. "I have a problem with paying those kinds of dollars to sit down with a public agency and try to work out problems," he contends. He went on to say that the Commission expects the NCWCD to contribute between $5-10,000. They have tried to limit the forum to a core working group of about 25 entities. "If we limit it to those groups and come to an agreement, the people who haven't been participating are Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 4 going to tell us what we can do with -that decision," he insisted. In addition, they have two municipalities, Colorado Spring and Denver, who are supposed to be representing all municipalities. It's not appropriate that those two cities have to pay the entire portion for municipalities when they are supposed to be representing other communities, such as Fort Collins, Greeley, etc. Moreover, he doesn't think that their views are necessarily in agreement with the other communities they are representing. Three representatives of industries are a part of the forum: EG&G from Rocky Flats, Public Service Co., and Coors, were selected for various reasons. "I think other entities need to be given the opportunity, if they want to participate," he said. "In my opinion, for $50-75,000, we could do a lot more in the area of water quality that would be more productive," Mr. Schleiger asserted. Neil Grigg asked who is trying to get the facilitation together. David Holmes and Paul Frohart from the WQCD, Mr. Schleiger replied. The meeting is set for the 15th and 16th of July somewhere out of the Denver area. He related that the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters and some of the environmental groups say they have no money to help pay the facilitators. The Health Dept. told them to come and participate anyway. He pointed out that the EDF has a budget of some $40 million. Their response was that it's not for that type of meeting; it's for litigation. He thinks it is blatantly unfair that the Northern District is expected to contribute dollars and have those kinds of groups sitting at the table free, "and possibly taking the information back to litigate against us." He encouraged Fort Collins to look into the situation. The group has the potential to structure how future rulings will be undertaken. "If that's the case, it's to our benefit to have input into it," he stressed. "Will members of the WQCD be participating in the meeting?" Dr. Grigg asked. There are some who will be, Mr. Schleiger replied. Some expressed an interest in being there, he added. Out of 25 members who have been attending, there have been 4 or 5 commissioners: Laura Davis, Connie King and Mary Berhardt, have been regular participants. The Health Dept. is not going to be contributing per se to the $50-75,000 for the two-day meeting. "We're down to about 10 entities that they would like to foot the bill," Mr. Schleiger pointed out. Dr. Grigg said he has been hearing about the water quality emphasis the District has been involved in, but wasn't aware of the details, and he thanked Mr. Schleiger for providing those. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 5 Dr. Grigg also asked the name of the organization whose meeting Mr. Schleiger attended last night. It's called North Front Range Water Quality Planning. It takes the place of the old Larimer/Weld 208 group. They have eliminated the transportation part of it, and are now strictly into water quality issues. President Grigg thanked the District for providing all of the valuable information, including a new map of the NCWCD. Raw Water Requirements for Customers Requesting Raw Water Service Prior to the discussion, board member MaryLou Smith disclosed that her firm Aqua Engineering is doing work for the Poudre R-1 School District related to this issue, which constitutes a conflict of interest. She will not participate in the discussion and will abstain from voting. In their packets Board members received a summary item which included background information on raw water requirements for customers requesting raw water service. Dennis Bode explained that in the last 2 years, the Utility has had a number of requests from groups to convert from treated water to raw water for irrigation purposes. In addition, for several years, the Water Utility has made a concerted effort to encourage the use of raw water for the irrigation of large landscaped areas. In 1990, an ordinance was passed which allowed existing customers to apply for a rebate of previously paid plant investment fees (PIFs) upon conversion from treated water to raw water. Recently the Poudre R-1 School District approached the Utility requesting that the City consider providing raw water to the new Fort Collins High School Site at the comer of Horsetooth and Timberline. The school site will have approximately 40 acres of landscaped area and the proposed adjacent City park would add another 15 acres. Historically, that area has been irrigated with Arthur Irrigation Company water, and it appears there would be significant benefits to continuing to irrigate that site with raw water. The City and School district have been exploring ways that this can be accomplished. Alternatives that have been discussed include: 1. Poudre R-1 could purchase shares in the Arthur Irrigation Company for delivery to the school site. Mr. Bode said that one problem with this alternative is finding enough shares at one time to do that, and the District is not particularly eager to become shareholders. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 6 2. Poudre R-1 could provide shares of stock acceptable to the City in exchange for City -owned shares in the Arthur Irrigation Company. Again, the school district does not particularly want to own the shares. From the City's viewpoint, it probably would not be desirable to reduce the number of its shares of Arthur Irrigation Co. stock. 3. Poudre R-1 could satisfy the City's raw water requirements (similar to requirements for treated water) and the City would agree to provide an adequate number of Arthur shares for use by the District. Mr. Bode went on to say that part of the purpose of the discussion today is to review the questions involved in providing this service to the school district, and partly because it is a relatively new idea. Mr. Bode has discussed this idea with the City Attorney's office and there appear to be a couple of ways to approach it: 1) Enact some changes to the City code that would allow a customer to turn over raw water and the City would in turn provide raw water that the City owned back to the customer. 2) Enter into an agreement with the customer which would specify that they would turn over X number of Ac-ft of water rights or water certificates, and in turn the City would agree to serve them with raw water. Mr. Bode believes that the City Attorney's thinking was that perhaps there are advantages to an agreement. There may be provisions that would be too specific to include in the code, for example, that you might want to include in an agreement. The other consideration is if it is in the code, it may encourage a number of customers to apply for the service to whom it may be impractical for the City to serve raw water. An agreement allows the City to work out the necessary details for the customers for whom it is feasible to receive the service, he pointed out. Mr. Bode listed three questions for the Water Board to think about as they are discussing this issue, and help staff to evaluate the best way to proceed: 1. Should the City encourage the use of raw water by assisting the School District and others in providing raw water for future development in areas where it is feasible? Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 7 2. Is it better for the City to be the owner of raw water delivered to various customers around the City or better that each individual entity own the water and participate in company operations and policies? 3. If the City were to provide water to "raw water customers," should these customers be willing to accept lower water quality and lower reliability (along with lower costs)? Tim Dow thinks the concept makes a lot of sense. "It's consistent with other things the City is trying to do, although we do need to be somewhat selective as to where it is or isn't feasible," he added. Tom Brown stated that he is very much in favor of providing the service to selected entities, where it is feasible. "Given certain criteria, it certainly makes sense to avoid additional treatment costs where they are unnecessary," he stressed. Mr. Bode explained that in the case of Poudre R-1, the PIFs might approach approximately $200,000, if you were going to serve that site with treated water. As was mentioned previously, the school site will have nearly 40 acres of landscaped area, and the adjacent park would add another 15 acres, he said. "Does this mean they wouldn't have to pay PIFs if they receive raw water?" Tom Sanders asked. "Yes, for the areas that are served by raw water," Mr. Bode replied. Is it technically feasible, if the water were delivered to the site, that the City would not have to invest capital to construct a channel or pipeline to deliver the water to that site? Dr. Sanders continued. We would use the Arthur Irrigation system through Lake Sherwood, Mr. Bode responded. From that point on it would be their problem to determine how to get water in their own system, he explained. Dr. Sanders agreed with Mr. Dow and Mr. Brown that this is a good idea. "We want to encourage raw water use," he emphasized. He went on to say that he thinks the school district should buy the water rights and turn them over to the City like everybody else does. "I think it would be the fairest way," he concluded. Mr. Bode explained the procedure used with a normal customer. The City has a list of raw water that is acceptable, and it is the customer's choice as to what they turn in, he said. In the Poudre R-1 case, they have talked to people who have some water certificates, for example. As part of that deal, they would probably purchase some shares in Lake Sherwood that would Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 8 allow them some storage. That is a key part in this particular case because they need some water in storage to serve them early and late in the season. Tom Sanders asked how many Ac-ft the District has estimated they would need. "A little over 90," Mr. Bode replied. What does a share of Arthur deliver? "About 3 1/2 Ac-ft; so they need roughly 30 shares," Mr. Bode explained. Dr. Sanders had two more questions: How many shares does the City have in Arthur Irrigation? We have about 390. Does the water from Arthur go to irrigators that we lease the water to? Mr. Bode explained that there aren't very many users out that way anymore. There are a couple of large users, but there are plenty of shares available, he assured the Board. What if the District became the only user on that system eventually? Dave Frick wanted to know. "That's a large transport, cost." Tom Sanders pointed out that Woodward Governor and Parkwood both use Arthur water for irrigation. Part of the solution might be to concentrate on keeping a few customers out there to maintain stability, so you don't have a limited flow to worry about, Dennis Bode suggested. Dave Frick related that Greeley is actually talking about creating a raw water utility that will serve large entities. They are considering using ditches and reservoirs and constructing some pipelines. A raw water utility provides a source of revenue and you keep the facilities all under city control. It seems to Mr. Frick that if the City is going to provide this service, it should take control of the whole thing and charge rates accordingly. Dr. Grigg asked if the City would be charging any rates to Poudre R-1 for the raw water lateral. I think the rates we would charge would be to recover the assessments that we pay to the irrigation Co., Mr. Bode explained. The company would still have the maintenance and operation of the system, he added. Neil Grigg commented that the concept of a raw water utility is really appealing. With all the discussion these days about conservation, it reminds us of the discussions in the past about dual water systems. What we are discussing today could actually be categorized as a dual water system, he said. "If we could make it work there are a number of interesting implications suggesting a better use of water." One of the disadvantages, of course, is that people could tap into the untreated water and think it's treated water. "We would have to watch out for that," he cautioned. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 9 He went on to say, if we decide to pursue this, we could do it a step at a time; like changing the code, for example. Or we could look at a more total approach such as a raw water utility, including charges and development of facilities and systems, etc., with the idea that we would like to expand this in the future, and use as much raw water as we can in the City. "If we did that, there would be some kind of a PIF implication for the raw water customers, because there would be some investment for delivering the water," he concluded. Tom Sanders is concerned that we could lose control of the quality of water the residents are drinking if we aren't careful with it. "Some of the small scale individual filter plants might look very reasonable for some large sub -divisions," he speculated. Dave Frick pointed out that this would only be running during the summer. "I would think by the way you structure the pricing of it, you would discourage small users, and encourage the large users," he said. Mr. Bode stated that the number of sites where this is feasible is fairly limited. Tom Sanders wanted to know if this actually requires a code change. "Can't we as a Board suggest it to the City Council? I don't think it's necessary to have a code change." he emphasized. If you had a significant number of these situations coming up, it would probably make sense. If there were only a few large sites, it would be logical to enter into individual agreements. "I think it's important that the City has the final say as to whether or not they provide the service," he concluded. What do you estimate as the loss in revenue if the school district decides to implement the service? Dave Stewart asked. "I'm not sure I would call it lost revenue," Mr. Bode responded. The money they would have paid us would have gone for expanding treatment capacity. Mr. Stewart continued by pointing out that Riffenburg School, e.g., which is right next to Edora Park, could tie into the raw water system that's already there on Spring Creek, and cut their water bill substantially. Mr. Bode pointed out that the monthly charges for treated water are roughly $1.00 for every 1,000 gallons. "I think the raw water charge has to incorporate some fee for that potential loss of revenue," Mr. Stewart insisted. Although she did not want to participate in the discussion, MaryLou Smith had a question that related to what Dave Stewart was talking about. "How is this different from what the City has agreed to with Parkwood and Warren Shores?" In those cases we are watching out for ourselves on that issue, and we agreed to some arrangements, she recalled. "Are we suggesting something different here than in those cases?" "I think the main difference in this case is that the raw water rights have not been satisfied, in that they are not an existing customer for that piece of land," Mr. Bode explained. For the cases that Ms. Smith alluded to, there is a provision in the Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 10 code that details how to go about providing PIF rebates, and addresses the PIFs more than raw water. Ms. Smith said she sees that in those cases they had already paid a PIF and we came up with an ordinance as to how we would reimburse them for part of it, but not for all because we wanted to allow some funds for the potential decrease in revenue. The other part of it is that in those cases, the water had been turned in or satisfied some time in the past, so it was like they already had some credit. In the case of the school district they haven't provided the raw water, Mr. Bode clarified. With regard to ownership of raw water, it would seem to me it would make a lot more sense for the City to own it, and lease it to them under some arrangement, rather than getting into a complicated requirement system where they had the shares, Neil Grigg suggested. Dennis Bode responded that in this case the plan is to have another City park site adjacent to the high school site. "We would probably be providing Arthur shares for that site also." Dave Stewart asked how the Utility treats its own departments like Parks & Rec. "We provide raw water to them on an as needed basis." Mr. Bode replied. "I assume then that we will treat them like any customer, and if we set up a fee system, they would pay that too," Mr. Stewart remarked. Eventually that is what we are working towards, Mr. Bode said. Mike Smith added that the City has a tentative agreement with P&R that, over the next few years, they will begin paying the assessments associated with that cost. Tom Brown asked if Poudre R-1 wanted to, could they just purchase shares in Arthur without talking to the City at all. "That's right," Mr. Bode answered. Neil Grigg concluded that he likes the idea of encouraging raw water use, and moving towards creating a raw water utility. "It gives us a lot more flexibility and more of a total management organization." Tim Dow asked if the City could add a condition in the agreement with Poudre R-1 that in the event the City would go to a raw water utility that they would agree to sign on to that? Mr. Bode thinks there would be some kind of provision that says we would serve them raw water from the Arthur system as long as that system was there. "I suppose the agreement could include something along the lines you suggest too," he added. Tom Brown asked for a clarification. "You're saying that essentially the school district would be using the City's water so the City would have some control over that if eventually the City Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 11 went to a more serious raw water utility setup?" The response was, "yes." Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board recommend the concept in general and that staff pursue an agreement with the school district to serve them raw water. Tim Dow seconded the motion. MaryLou Smith abstained because of her conflict of interest. The remainder of the Board voted unanimously to accept the motion. Dave Frick suggested that staff look into the feasibility of developing a raw water utility. President Grigg said that one thing we can certainly do is find out more about how Greeley is approaching it. He also suggested a briefing on that in the future. Mr. Bode related that he has discussed this briefly already with Greeley. He said they have a slightly different situation in that they have some customers who have been renting raw water from the City of Greeley. They appear to be looking at rates that would recover the cost of the raw water too. Dave Frick added they also face the same situation that the Board took up recently with Parks & Rec., in that they have difficulty getting the raw water in the spring and early fall to irrigate golf courses, etc. with raw water. What they are looking at is the ability to move around the use of CBT water so they don't have to provide treated water during those periods by management of the ditches. Tim Dow pointed out that in Phoenix they have ditch systems that provide raw water flood irrigation for residences during the night time hours 2 or 3 times a week. However, it isn't something that you could retrofit, he admitted. Dr. Grigg concluded that he thinks in the future more places will elect to cut down on the use of treated water by converting, when feasible, to raw water for irrigation. Staff Reoorts Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that in May the water use was 2,885 Ac-ft and that was about 12% above what was projected. The warmer weather and the precipitation registering at 1.2 in. below normal were reflected in our above normal water use. In June so far, there have been timely rains and cooler weather. As a result, we are now running about 70% of the projected use. In other words, the water use has "flip-flopped." For the year we are at about 97% of the projected numbers, so it is averaging out quite well. Neil Grigg asked how our water supplies look. I think our supply is in good shape, Mr. Bode replied. The precipitation has held the water use down, and with the cooler weather all the Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 12 reservoirs are in good shape. How the agriculture community fares will depend on what happens the rest of the year, but the City is doing well, he concluded. Committee Reports Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance Board members received a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 92-15 concerning the recognition by the U.S. Forest Service of rights to Colorado water as such rights exist under Colorado water law. A cover letter from Legislative and Finance Chairman Tim Dow was attached. Neil Grigg asked if this is related to the discussion at the last meeting about special use permits. Mike Smith distributed copies of a memo which the Utility is sending to the Council and Water Board concerning the issue of special use permits. The purpose of the memo was to bring the Council's attention to a potential issue regarding the U.S. Forest Service's re -issuance of the special use permit for Joe Wright Reservoir. The Forest Service is proposing a new condition which would require the City to bypass flows which could otherwise be stored in Joe Wright. This new condition could impact the City's existing water supply and burden the City with future costly reservoir modifications. This new condition is also being imposed on other area entities. Mr. Smith said it is not something the Board can take action on today, but it is important to read the memo and ask questions and offer comments. Tom Sanders asked what the City's yield is from the Michigan Ditch. Dennis Bode said it is about 5,000 Ac-ft. "That's 10% of our flow the Forest Service wants to remove," Dr. Sanders remarked. "At a minimum, they should pay us $1.5 million if they want to do that," he asserted. President Grigg said this is a complex matter and deserves Water Board discussion. He suggested that at the next meeting the Board spend time formulating recommended strategy. "I'm in favor of leaving enough water in the stream to sustain the fish, but on the other hand, when you look at the legal aspects of it, and talk about the money invested, it becomes a horse of a different color." One can become quite disturbed at those who want to take the water without any compensation. There are all kinds of issues here that need to be discussed. Tom Sanders reinforced Dr. Grigg's statement by saying that the Forest Service wants to actually take, without compensation, part of a resource that the City developed on its own without the use of federal money. However, if we could move the water to provide 5 cfs in the stream, and transfer the water downstream, and we don't actually lose it, that would be Water Board Minutes June 19, IM Page 13 acceptable. Tom Brown asked about the time frame in terms of making decisions and recommendations. Mike Smith explained that Council won't receive this memo until next week. It's possible the Council may want their legislative committee to see it, or they may want to see it before then. If that happens the Water Board may want to have a special meeting to make a recommendation to the Council, or at least to the legislative committee. As I understand it, Dave Frick began, there was some actual testimony in the reserved rights case by Forest Service personnel that there was never any intent by the Forest Service to make any of the reserved rights issues apply to existing permits in the forest. In this case they are going against what they testified to in court, he said. Mike Smith said staff asked about that and they said it isn't a reserved right, it's part of the Forest Management Plan. Their statutes state that they must protect the environment. Tom Brown said that the recent testimony to which Mr. Frick referred is quite separate from this. We are talking about fish habitat, not channel maintenance, he clarified. Dave Frick said, "but they were talking about not making things retroactive on existing permits." Neil Grigg commented that this appears to reflect a change in Forest Service philosophy, tilting more towards environmental issues. Ben Alexander remarked that Austin Condon seems to be the driving force in this area. He is with the local Forest Service, and is involved with land management. Tim Dow suggested that staff invite Mr. Condon to come to the Board meeting and explain the Forest Service's position. Mr. Smith responded by saying that all he will do is give you copies of the Forest Service Management Plan, and cite sections that allow them to do this. Tom Sanders said this could become a major issue, along with the problem we could have with our water rights relative to a possible wilderness designation in that area. "I suggest we get our water attorney to start looking into this and make some waves," he asserted. Tom Brown asked if we have a clear idea of what a special use permit is. The fairness of the situation is one to which we all react the same way, he stated, but that may not be in line with the legalities. When special use permits are developed, in a sense, you are at the mercy of the issuing agency for the conditions under which they issue the permit, Mike Smith pointed out. The fairness issue emerges when you evaluate the economics and the feasibility of this project. What they are proposing now was not a condition at the time they issued the permit. The project has been built and has been in operation for a number of years, and now they are trying Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 14 to impose new conditions. He went on to say that the Forest Service says they have full control. With a special use permit, they can impose any conditions they want; especially if it is in their management plan. MaryLou Smith pointed out that they can also say we should have thought of that before we built the project. Mr. Smith continued by saying that during the evaluations of the design of the reservoir, there were discussions about low flow releases, and the dam was designed without low flow releases. The Forest Service approved that, so there are some legal questions involved. Tom Sanders pointed out that building the reservoir allowed a fishery to develop that wouldn't have been there without it. Ben Alexander agreed. "Not only did we create a fishery, we created it to the extent that the reservoir is their spawning ground for Emerald Lake Rainbow trout. The Division of Wildlife put in their spawning beds, and they capture those trout and stock other areas out of the spawning grounds we created at Joe Wright," he emphasized. The Forest Service can't say we didn't try to make it better, Tom Sanders added. Tim Dow suggested again that staff invite the local Forest Service representative and have a discussion about this. MaryLou Smith wasn't sure she liked that idea. Mr. Dow said that in his experience with issues like this, often the people making regulations apparently have not given much thought to how it affects the people who are going to have to live with the regulations. "If they come here and talk to us about it, perhaps they will think about it," he contends. Dr. Grigg said, "that's a good point." MaryLou Smith explained that what concerns her about this is that staff has been working with these people, and it might cause staff more problems if the Water Board became involved. She asked staff if they were concerned about that. Mr. Smith replied, "no." We are still working on an administrative solution, he added. He also related that other entities that face the same problem have sent letters to their Colorado Congressional representatives. Furthermore, Attorney General Gale Norton has sent a letter to the attorney for the Dept. of Agriculture in Washington asking that the process be put on hold until it is resolved. There are a number of things happening at a higher level, although Mr. Smith hasn't seen any results of those efforts yet. Neil Grigg stated that one of the purposes of inviting the local Forest Service representative would be to determine what is on his mind, exchange ideas and tell him what our thinking is. Ms. Smith said she doesn't have a problem with inviting a Forest Service Rep. as long as staff doesn't think it interferes with their planning. Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 15 Ben Alexander contends that staff has related every argument they can think of in the negotiations with the F.S. He cited a case of a district that serves the Winter Park Ski area. Their water treatment plant is just inside the F.S. boundary. They are under a special use permit, and have had considerable difficulty, beginning ten years ago, trying to expand their plant. Now the F.S. is trying to impose minimum streamflows at that site. They need 3 cfs to supply the Winter Park usage in the winter, and the F.S. wants them to let 1 cfs go by "It's just not there," he concluded. It seems to President Grigg that this issue could be a critical one after listening to all the discussion. He would like the Water Board 'to be prepared when the Council takes up this issue. Mike Smith pointed out that the next Water Board meeting conflicts with the closing arguments of the Thornton trial in Greeley. The Board agreed to move their regular meeting to Friday, July loth. Dave Frick suggested that staff invite our Council liaison Loren Maxey to the meeting. Tom Brown asked if there are other special use permits in the Poudre that are affected. Yes, Mike Smith replied, and added that this only affects Roosevelt and Arapaho Forests. Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith reported that the Children's Water Festival was wonderful. Neil Grigg was also very impressed with it. He said that the staff who organized it and worked hard to make it the success that it turned out to be, deserve considerable praise. "We have booked a date for next year already," he added. Ms. Smith said her committee will not meet again until September. Engineering No report Other Business Meeting with ELCO A memo reporting on the meeting with ELCO was included in the Water Board packets. Dr. Grigg asked if there were any questions about the meeting. Tim Dow asked what we are thinking about doing relative to Boxelder Sanitation District over the next 6-12 months. Mike Smith responded that since Boxelder decided to function on their own and left ELCO, the City has had very little success trying to discuss any issues with them. He explained that there are a number of new industries looking at the northeast part of Fort Collins. One has even taken up a contract to build there. The president and the manager of the Boxelder District refuse to accept that these people are going to locate there and won't even address their issues. Meanwhile, there are other industries looking at the area, but they soon learn that Boxelder can't Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 16 provide adequate wastewater service, and that usually ends the discussions. Tom Gallier reported that at the North Front Range Water Quality Planning meeting last night, when they discussed the 1992 update of the 208 water quality plan, two conditions were involved. One of the conditions was that something be done about Boxelder in terms of deciding about the regional treatment facility, and also whether they are going to upgrade or put in a new treatment facility. Boxelder sent a letter to the organization disputing all the points that were raised from the division staff, he related. Tim Dow contends that these regional plans are a long time off. "It seems to me that Water Board and Council ought to have some kind of strategy for dealing with Boxelder, because it is a fairly important issue in terms of water quality and in terms of growth and economic development." Mike Smith related that basically Boxelder has almost an entirely new board. The Board members who were "friendly" prior to the separation with ELCO, have all resigned. Dave Stewart thinks it would be a good idea to have the Water Board and Boxelder meet, at least to talk about issues. Mr. Dow said he doesn't think we are at a point that we are quite ready to do that. It seems that the Water Board needs to be made aware of the situation, technically and politically. Then we need to visit with our Council liaison, so we don't get too far ahead of ourselves, he cautioned. Any serious discussion with Boxelder needs to have the stamp of approval of the City Council. MaryLou Smith agrees that the Board needs to develop a strategy before they put too much on the table. Neil Grigg suggested that it would be worthwhile to put a general item on the agenda, perhaps called "regional wastewater service issues," and have a briefing on it. This will help us to understand the issues involved. Then we can decide what we are going to do next. "If this is a real drag on growth, somebody needs to do something about it." Mike Smith remarked that it is hard to explain the difficulty working with the Boxelder Board. "That being the case," Dr. Grigg said, "in addition to just structural issues, having to do with boundaries, incentives and economics, there are also personalities involved." Tom Brown thinks that before we get into the strategy, he would like a better understanding of why we are so concerned. "The problems with Boxelder are forcing growth away from the City," Dave Stewart responded. "If you can't put your industrial waste somewhere, you aren't going to locate in the City." Tim Dow stated that water quality is also an issue. Tom Brown said he guesses we could talk about the growth issue and decide whether it is in our interest to deal with something outside the City boundaries. "It's not outside the City's boundaries; parts of it are just outside of our service area," Dave Stewart clarified. Mike Smith explained that Boxelder serves most of the area that is north of the River and east of Lemay. • Water Board Minutes June 19, 1992 Page 17 Dave Stewart pointed out that the area is becoming a viable industrial area from a planning standpoint. I definitely think we need to know what the issues are before we start talking about strategy, Mr. Brown insisted. President Grigg said the Board will discuss this further at the next meeting. Ideas for Use of Old Water Treatment Plant Site Neil Grigg said that Will Smith, the president of the Natural Resources Board, told him that his Board has been discussing potential uses of the old water treatment plant property in the Poudre Canyon. Mr. Smith gave Dr. Grigg a letter from Will Smith that explains this matter. They would like to get a large representative group together to talk about multiple uses of this site. The letter addresses these ideas. The Water Board secretary will make copies of the letter and include them in the next Water Board packets. The Board can then discuss the matter at the next meeting. Mike Smith acknowledged that the site is a good resource and could be made into an excellent recreation area for the City. Of course everyone has their own personal views about what it should be used for, he said. The City Utility should have some involvement in it, he stated, "because after all, it is our property." He pointed out that part of the problem the Natural Resources Board is going to have is that this issue is not on the Council's work plan. Staff resources are such that unless something is on the work plan, it is difficult to spend much time on it. President Grigg asked that the item be on the agenda for next time. Molly Nortier announced that MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow and Tom Brown were re -appointed to additional 4-year terms on the Water Board. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Water Boar8 Secretary