HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/19/1986u
Members Present
Norm Evans, President,
Smith, John Scott, Tom
MINUTES
Water Board
September 19, 1986
Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Jim O'Brien, Mary Lou
Moore, Dave Stewart, Jo Boyd (alt.)
Staff Present
Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander, Andy
Pineda, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
Members Absent
Neil Grigg, Stan Ponce, Ray Herrmann (alt.)
President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were
discussed:
Minutes
The minutes for August 15, 1986 were approved.
Meeting With Greeley Water Board
President Evans announced that he had spoken with Bill Farr, Chairman of the
Greeley Water Board. Mr. Farr agreed that now would be an appropriate time
for the two boards to hold an informal meeting. Given the high level of
emotion associated with the Thornton issue in the Fort Collins community as
well as Greeley's a few weeks earlier, a meeting at that time might not have
been as effective. Therefore, a date has been set for October 2 for a
dinner meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Greeley.
Dr. Evans said that he and Mr. Farr agreed that a formal agenda would defeat
the purpose of getting acquainted and establishing communications. Yet, it
is presumed that both groups will want to have discussions. Dr. Evans
suggested, for the purpose of discussion, that a topic we may want to
discuss would be our mutual strategies for protecting our current and future
water supplies. If we need to go further, we might pursue what each City is
individually contemplating as its future water supply options -- at least
roughly, not getting into too much detail. Naturally, these would be
approached on an informal basis. He then asked for comments.
Mike Smith related that one of the items on the agenda for today's meeting,
is the Cache La Poudre Basin Study. The "Task 8" Summary reports were sent
to members earlier. The Greeley Board might want to discuss the various
options from that study. Also, the Greeley staff is pursuing with their
Board, the regionalization concept which our Board has discussed on several
occasions. This could be another topic for discussion.
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 2
Tom Sanders asked about the relationships of the Greeley Board with their
Council etc. Dr. Evans replied that their five member Board is similar to
ours in terms of being an advisory board to the council. Mike Smith added
that the Greeley Board has somewhat more authority than the Fort Collins
Board in the decision making process.
Henry Caulfield agreed that the two groups ought to discuss a level of
strategy if that naturally evolved in the conversation. In spite of what
occurred regarding the Thornton issue, Mr. Caulfield thinks that Greeley
can't be indifferent towards the possibility of others in the Denver/metro
area pursuing a similar route as Thornton, and thus precipitating a
discussion with Fort Collins on water strategies for the future.
Mike Smith commented that Greeley has a greater cushion in water supply than
does Fort Collins. Mr. Caulfield stressed, "we're talking long run, not
next year." Norm Evans related that judging from information he has
received, Fort Collins is catching up and now is probably in as good a
position as Greeley.
Mary Lou Smith suggested that perhaps we should send a delegation instead of
all going since our Board outnumbers theirs. Dr. Evans responded that he
didn't think the whole board attending would bother them.
President Evans announced that since the meeting was set with Greeley, he
has had communication with the Loveland Water Board. They have indicated
that they would like to meet with our Board also. Two dates have been
suggested for a meeting with Loveland with essentially the same format and
approach.
Update on Cache La Poudre Study
Dennis Bode explained that there are actually two different studies that he
wanted to update for the Board; one is the Poudre Basin Study and the other
is the Conservancy District's water and power project. The Poudre Basin
Study is the one that is sponsored and financed by the Colorado Water
Resources and Power Development Authority. It began about a year ago. The
work is being done by Harza Engineering and their sub -contractors. There
were two phases for the study. During the first one they primarily
collected data, did some computer modeling with the supplies in the basin,
looked at the demands, and also examined future demand projections. Then
they combined the water supply and demands to ascertain future scenarios of
basin impacts of droughts on that demand and supply. When that first phase
was completed in May of this year, they progressed to phase 2. In Phase 2
they had a "Task 7" where they identified what they called planned elements
--'essentially activities that would address shortage situations in the
future. They used both structural and non-structural measures.
From that task they went on to "Task 8," where they tried to formulate
alternative plans that might address future shortages in the basin. In doing
that they assumed that some of the non-structural alternatives would
probably be implemented before the structural alternatives. They selected
about a dozen non-structural alternatives that they thought were feasible to
implement. They looked at the structural alternatives and analyzed a number
Water Board Minut0 •
September 19, 1986
Page 3
of plans, eventually selecting 5 plans which were published in the "Task 8"
summary sent to the Board. Four of the plans included large pump storage
hydroelectric projects. The fifth plan was comprised of smaller reservoirs,
primarily for water supply. They also performed an economic analysis on
those plans; essentially the four hydroelectric plans. They assumed that if
the hydro demand was there, these projects would more than pay for
themselves. Plan 5 appeared not to be economically attractive.
There are two public meetings coming up where they plan to present a
recommended plan and get discussion and comments on the plan. The first
meeting will be September 23 in Greeley and the second will be September 30
in Fort Collins at 7:30 at the University Park Holiday Inn. From there,
they are in a position to finalize their reports which will probably be
completed within two to three months after the public meetings. Mr. Bode
isn't certain where they intend to go after that. It will probably depend on
the kind of reception they receive on their recommended plan. It is
possible, if they get funding, that they will proceed to a second phase -- a
feasibility level.
Jo Boyd asked what justification and what accounting basis are they using
for making statements that the hydropower will pay for itself. She went on
to say that at the moment, and probably for some time to come, Rawhide power
is excess power which is sold into the grid. Do they have full figures and
statistics for their statement, or is it a "glossy P.R. job on an
engineering report?" Mr. Bode responded that there is quite a lot of
information. Basically, what they are saying is they don't see much demand
for the next 10 years or so, but at some point in the mid 1990's or the year
2000, they think there will be some demand - perhaps not in this area but a
wider area. Henry Caulfield added that this is peaking power rather then
firm power; Rawhide is firm power. Mr. Bode explained that they are
proposing a project much like the District's proposed project where it is
peaking power. By being able to generate that power during peak periods,
they contend that it will be justified. Dr. Boyd observed that because of
costs that wouldn't be considered in a private project but is accepted as
part of a public project. Mike Smith clarified the public versus private
situation. The other proposed project is a Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District project which is a Cache La Poudre water and power
project similar to that proposed in the basin study. It is not a public
project per se. If it goes it will be financed by Private power utilities
who say it is cost effective. Dr. Boyd commented that they may be getting a
favorable tax break which would be almost like a grant. Mr. Smith said, at
this point, they don't know because they haven't tried to sell the power.
Within the next 6 to 8 months, the District or ERDA (Energy Resources
Development Association) is putting their own money in the Cache La Poudre
project. They will be contacting numerous large power utilities to see if
they want to invest in the Poudre Project. If they do the project may go; if
they don't it won't, he stressed.
Jo Boyd commented that it seems a shame to put a dam in a nearby canyon to
provide electricity for people in Kansas City, California, and other places.
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 4
Dennis Bode explained that their motivation is being able to say that they
can pay for a project by doing that and receive significant other benefits
as well -- water supply and management benefits are their basis.
Henry Caulfield said that the report makes it quite clear that the water
part of the plan is for the protection of agricultural interests for a 25
year drought. The power element is there to make the water essentially free
to the irrigators. That is the whole political or economic logic within this
region. The last time the comprehensive plan for the Poudre was up for
consideration, there were several dams on the Poudre being considered. The
main conclusion was that the power was not sellable. Mr. Caulfield contends
that the Water Board should not waste a lot of time worrying about this
problem. It is something the Board needs to keep abreast of, however.
Tom Moore asked John Scott to comment on this since he works for the Western
Area Power Administration. Mr. Scott responded by saying that WAPA looked
at a project with the Bureau on the North Platte, a 500 megawatt project.
"We couldn't sell that to any of the utilities," he related; "mostly because
there wasn't any demand for the power," he added. Mr. Scott doesn't think
the Poudre Project will fly either. He asked if the state authority or the
District ever said where they are actually going to sell the power. Mike
Smith replied, in the Cache La Poudre Project, the one the District is
proposing, they are talking about using DC lines to California and to Kansas
City. Mr. Scott commented that from the City's standpoint, in reading the
District's minutes, it sounds like they are going to start asking for
funding from some source. It that's the case, the District asks individuals
for that money. Mike Smith said the District is being careful not to do
that. They are looking for people to buy an equity position on the project.
ERDA has done that. They are going to be talking to California Edison later
on. The District has spent $2,000,000 on property for Glade Reservoir.
Their backup position is if none of the larger plans work, they can still
build a small reservoir for water supply which the District could afford.
Also, they do need some storage on the east side for Windy Gap water.
Henry Caulfield asked if the study includes anything about the plain's
reservoirs. Mr. Bode said the "Task 8" summary doesn't but in "Task 7"
where they look at specific elements such as dredging out some of the older
reservoirs, this turned out to be too expensive.. They also determined that
there wasn't enough plains storage capacity available to accommodate what
they consider to be the storage requirements.
Jim O'Brien said it disturbs him that they still appear to be approaching
this in a piecemeal fashion. The whole concept of storing large amounts of
water in Narrows or reservoirs like these, must be coordinated.
Dennis Bode commented that there has been some discussion about management
strategies that can be done to enhance the river between perhaps the upper
basin and the mouth of the canyon -- releasing some water from Joe Wright,
Long Draw and some of the upper reservoirs down to the lower reservoirs;
thus being able to enhance, in particular, some of the winter flows on the
stream. He explained further that some of these things have been discussed
in the areas of the environmental impacts of the different plans. Some of
4 Water Board Minuo •
September 19, 1986
Page 5
those areas about managing the water are discussed in the section on
mitigation. Jim O'Brien still thinks that for them not to be participating
in a joint management study and considering another massive storage
reservoir on one of the rivers that is contributing a large amount of the
spring runoff in the Platte, is nonsensical.
Mr. Bode believes that in some of the environmental areas, they may have
touched upon Mr. O'Brien's concern. There are people from Fish and Wildlife
who have been attending the meetings, as well, he added.
Mr. O'Brien addressed what he considers to be another disturbing element in
the process. The canyon residents are being put into a very awkward
position at this point, because the process seems to drag on for so long,
placing the majority of those people in limbo.
Dennis Bode concluded his report by saying that there is additional
information on this subject if anyone would like to pursue it further.
Henry Caulfield asked staff if there is anything in the report that would
require further investigation and study or comments from the Water Board. It
is Mr. Caulfield's judgement, at this point, that it would be premature.
Other things are more urgent, he concluded.
Mr. Bode thinks the Basin Study will in a short time, be put on the back
burner and the District project will take the limelight. Then depending on
the kind of reception they receive from the power utilities, it will either
be given some impetus or will fade away.
Mike Smith asked the Board if they wanted to have someone from the District
give an update on their project. It seemed to be the consensus of the Board
that there was no urgency to do so.
Water Issues Committee Update
Since there was not a recent meeting of the committee, no report was
available. The committee's next meeting will be Thursday, September 25, at
2:00 p.m., at the Service Center.
General Discussion on Water Supply Opportunities
Mike Smith reported that the staff and sub -committee are looking at future
strategies or policies for water acquisitions. It will probably be a few
months before that is finalized. There may be opportunities for water
acquisitions that may materialize in the meantime. Mr. Smith asked how the
Board wants to handle those. Do you want to act on each one or would you
prefer not to look at any opportunities before the strategies are finalized,
he asked. Norm Evans stated that we should not pass over possible water
supply opportunities. That has not been a wise approach in the past, he
cautioned.
Henry Caulfield asked about the money the Utility collects for raw water. He
looked for it in the budget document the Board received and wasn't sure he
could find it. Mike Smith said, by the end of the year that account, it is
hoped, will have a half million dollars.
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Caulfield remarked that it is our current policy to maintain a reserve.
Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate to buy water out of our reserve.
Tom Sanders asked what offers the staff has been receiving. Mr. Smith
responded that there have been offers of CBT water for $750 - $800, North
Poudre for $3500, and some shares in Wooster Reservoir which could be
exchanged with North Poudre for CBT water. (Wooster is located north of
Halligan Reservoir.) Also there is the "Great Western" water, and staff
thinks we ought to look closely at North Poudre Reservoirs 5 and 6; about
16,000 acre feet of storage. Staff believes that this is one that someone
will buy eventually.
Dave Stewart brought to the attention of the Board, Craig Harrison's 3-D map
of Northern Colorado where you have the advantage of seeing all the water
supplies detailed graphically. The map has all of the proposed reservoirs
and how the entire scheme of Northern Colorado water supply fits together.
Mr. Stewart thinks it would be worth a field trip to see it. Some members of
the Board who have seen it agree.
It seems to Henry Caulfield that we are currently in a period when prices of
water are at the lowest we are likely to see. We ought to take advantage of
that, he stressed. The economic situation is down for this area as well as
the country, he added. He went on to say that after investigation, the
staff should come back at the next meeting and inform the Board of what the
best opportunities are for spending money at this time to take advantage of
the low price of water, up to the $500,000 limit. Mr. Smith explained that
we aren't limited to that amount. Buying water for the future, you can
borrow money. Would you be receptive for the staff to do this, he asked. He
explained that staff would point out a specific water acquisition
opportunity which would fit into almost any strategy that we could come up
with. The Board was comfortable with that process.
Staff Reports
A. Treated Water Production Summary
Dennis Bode reported that water use continues to be fairly high -- a little
above average. It is interesting to note that out of seven of the last eight
months we have had below average precipitation, at least at the official
station. It has been a fairly dry year. Tom Moore read an article in the
Department newsletter which related that the Utility has been experiencing
some unusually high water use in the past year. The article reported that a
person was hired recently to do some analyses, particularly for leakage.
Dennis Bode responded that essentially what staff is trying to determine is
whether the high usage is a combination of things or one significant
problem. In the fall of 1984, we did see a significant unexplained rise in
use, he added. Mike Smith related that one of the things that occurred
about that same time was our potential Giardia threat at Water Treatment
Plant No. 1. Because of that problem, we changed piping systems. "Since
then, something has been different which has caused us to thoroughly check
the piping system from Plant No. 1," he revealed.
Henry Caulfield asked the results of the studies that were done. Mike Smith
replied that Dale Harlan, the person hired to perform an extensive series of
water measurements and leak detection studies, is just now wrapping up the
Water Board Minut
September 19, 1986
Page 7
project. Staff will report the results to the Board when the study is
completed.
Norm Evans observed that Linda Burger from the staff and a member of the
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission was in attendance. He asked her
if there was anything relevant that she wanted to report from the
Commission.
She reported that the Commission is about to come out with its first
regulation for ground water. The final version is on the brink of being
finished. She expects it to be adopted within a month or two. The storage
ponds at the sludge farm, for instance, might come under more regulation
because of these changes for ground water. Lagoon systems may come under
more regulations, as well. In October, the Commission is conducting a
hearing on the basic standards. They will be considering major changes in
the nitrogen series, nitrate, nitrite and ammonia, and will also consider a
different form of analysis for metals, as well as different standards.
Staff has been looking at what impact that will have on the City. It is
possible that fort Collins and other cities will encounter difficulties with
the ammonia standards if they are adopted as proposed, she said. She
hesitated to estimate where the Commission will end up with this but she
thinks it will be a fairly long process; much like the ground water
regulations process has been. Within two or three months, she will be able
to give the Beard a better picture of how it is going.
Norm Evans said he had heard of a problem in connection with Thornton
concerning the ammonia limit subject. They were finding that some of their
ground water pumping which is from their aquifer near the river was getting
a lot of nitrate/nitrite in the water and that would increase if they
required the metro plant to reduce ammonia discharge. Ms. Burger explained
that this was an issue when the Commission held hearings on the South Platte
discharges. It turns out, however, that the aquifers that are impacted are
presently used by Thornton only as a backup supply. Any time they were
used, they would be mixed with other sources. The aquifers are a
drought -type supply. It turned out the impact on Thornton wasn't as great
as one might imagine. Metro treats all of Thornton's wastewater which
placed Thornton in an awkward position at the hearings.
Committee Reports
A. "Picnic Rock" Issue
Mike Smith reviewed the background of this issue. At the last Board meeting
on August 15, 1986, the following recommendation was passed unanimously by
the Board: "We therefore recommend that whatever plan to which the Council
agrees, an understanding is necessary that the City retain either fee title
to the land or dedicated right -of way, including the right to restrict
building directly over the pipelines. In addition, the decision should
specify that the City Water and Wastewater staff must approve the final
project design to ascertain that the City's access to its water lines is
protected." There was some concern by the Board members about the proposal
to charge fees, but they decided to leave that decision to the state and the
county.
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 8
Since the last meeting the Natural Resources Board has struggled with this
issue, more so than the Water Board. Their concerns were the subject of a
recent article in the Color.adoan. They have since modified their
involvement somewhat.
Mike Smith stated that "what staff would like to do is make a positive
recommendation to the City Council basing it on a public health issue."
Currently there are public health problems at the site. If the state plans
to build some restrooms, that is good for the City.
Mr. Smith listed the following four points to be considered for the
recommendation to the Council:
1) Short term lease (not more than 3 years) _.
2) Work towards eventual sale or trade of the property
3) No building within 40 feet of the water lines
4) No liability for the City
Mr. Smith added that the Board may want to express some concerns regarding
the fee structure but he doesn't think the Board should become involved in
that issue.
Tom Moore expressed some concern about becoming involved in areas where the
Water Board does not belong. Mr. Smith responded that the public health
area was suggested because "water quality is our business." Even though our
intake may not be above the area in question at this point, Greeley's intake
is below there and eventually we may become involved in exchanging water
with Greeley.
Henry Caulfield contends that regardless of any of the Board's personal
opinions, it is not the Board's business to get into the question of fees.
That is a state issue, he stressed.
MaryLou Smith said that she questions the involvement of the Natural
Resources Board in the issue, as well. She believes that our only
legitimate involvement is with the City owned land.
Tom Moore reiterated that if the Council decides to go ahead with the
proposal, the four points Mike Smith listed are what the Water Board needs
to be concerned with. "We shouldn't express a pro or con on this," he
emphasized.
MaryLou Smith confirmed that this is essentially what the sub -committee memo
said.
Tom Moore moved that the Board make no recommendations on the merits of the
issue, but if a decision is made to proceed with the proposal, the four
recommendations would be the Board's concerns. Henry Caulfield offered a
friendly amendment that Mike Smith express the Board's concern with the
water quality issue in terms of the use of the City owned land.
Water Board Minuo •
September 19, 1986
Page 9
Norm Evans suggested making the water quality concern point No. 5. Jo Boyd
objected to including the water quality issue because, "we are taking sides
again," she claimed. Dave Stewart contends that if the Water Board doesn't
bring it up, who will? Henry Caulfield suggested limiting No. 5 to
"providing adequate sanitation facilities."
Norm Evans asked Tom Moore, if his motion provides for no recommendation on
the issue, then shouldn't the 4 or 5 points be called "matters of concern
rather than recommendations?" Tom Moore agreed.
Tom Sanders stated that he agrees with Dave Stewart about the water quality
issue.
At this point someone asked, how do we resolve this issue?
Mike Smith said, "let's start over." Let's just say that someone has asked
if we would lease or sell our piece of property to them. That is the
request the Council will get. Tom Moore stated that No. 5, providing
adequate sanitation facilities, should be deleted because it has nothing to
do with whether or not we want to lease or sell our property.
After discussion, Dr. Boyd agreed to second Tom Moore's original motion.
President Evans restated the motion: The Water Board has no objection to
the sale of the property, and if it is sold, the four points listed earlier,
would be recorded as the Board's concerns. The motion passed unanimously.
Henry Caulfield offered a second motion. The Board would direct Mike Smith,
at the time this issue is presented to the Council, to point out that there
is a question of water quality associated with the land in question. This
concern should be conveyed to the Council in addition to the four points
listed in the previous motion. He added that the Board is merely indicating
that this is a concern that the Council should be aware of. Tom Sanders
provided a second and after the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
B. ByLaws
Mary Lou Smith, Chairman of the ByLaws Committee, reported that since she was
unable to attend the last meeting, she reviewed what had occurred with Tom
Moore, a member of the committee, and Molly Nortier, Water Board Secretary.
She also read the account in the minutes. Prior to this meeting she and Tom
Moore agreed that every time Bylaws come up, we have 5 or 10 minutes to
consider them and the process becomes piecemeal. We don't appear to be
coming to any closure because of this. Thus, the committee wishes to
recommend that ByLaws be tabled and discussed at the time that the Board
meets at a retreat type setting to discuss Water Board/Staff relationships.
She justified this by saying that a number of the issues coming up regarding
the Bylaws relate to that issue. Furthermore, in order to make certain that
the Bylaws as a whole, are not just a patchwork of what the Board is all
about, but that they truly reflect the Board as it is, we need this quality
time to accomplish this important task. She added that it has been quite
some time since the Bylaws were last revised. Earlier, when Ms. Smith and
Mr. Moore were appointed to the task of Bylaws revision, they considered
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 10
their job as merely clearing up some housekeeping type items, but as the
months have passed, other larger issues have emerged which the Board seems
to want to include in the Bylaws. President Evans concluded that Bylaws
will be made a part of the agenda for a meeting that will take place at a
later date, as the Bylaws Committee has requested.
Other Business
Norm Evans announced that the Xeriscape Demonstration Garden Dedication
Ceremony will be held on Saturday, September 20 at 9:30 a.m. at the garden
site. He visited the garden last weekend and was favorably impressed. He
encouraged other Board members to attend the ceremony or visit the garden at
their convenience.
Henry Caulfield informed the Board that a former Water Board member is
participating in the recently organized Charter Review Committee. He told
Mr. Caulfield that the Committee is considering removing several Boards from
the City Charter. This, of course, does not mean that any of them would be
abolished. Instead of being a part of the Charter, it is presumed that they
would be created as a matter of ordinance, as Mr. Caulfield understands the
issue. Incidentally, Mr. Caulfield also related that the Committee has
decided to drop the City Manager as a voting member of the Water Board, an
item which was brought up by the Board during discussion of the Bylaws. The
larger question, he went on to say, is whether the Water Board and other
boards and commissions should be in the Charter or exist as a matter of
ordinance. Mr. Caulfield's personal reaction is that they should remain in
the Charter because an ordinance is easily changed by a city council and
perhaps "they could get rid of a Water Board that is in disfavor with them
for some reason." Therefore, there are no real power negotiations if you
"are a creature of ordinance" which can be abolished with a couple of
meetings of the council, while, on the other hand, changes in the Charter
require a vote of the people.
MaryLou Smith asked if the Charter Committee will be presenting its
recommendations at some point and asking for public input. Mr. Caulfield
said Board members could speak as individuals at that point. He isn't
certain that we could address this as a full Board. Tom Sanders asked why
they are suggesting this change. Mr. Caulfield stated that there is also a
recommendation that the structure of the City government not be included in
the Charter. In other words, no organizational structures would be put in
the Charter -- it would be strictly by ordinance or the City Manager's
prerogative to organize City government as he and the Council chose.
The member of the Committee who was a former Water Board member, feels
strongly that the Water Board and other key Boards should remain in the
Charter. He also has stated that he favors, as part of the listed
qualifications for Water Board membership, that at least half of the Water
Board members be qualified water professionals.
Mike Smith added that it is his understanding that the Charter Committee
wants to streamline the Charter. There are certain items that could be
easily handled by ordinance and that are mainly the prerogative of the
Water Board Minutes
September 19, 1986
Page 11
Council. It is also Mr. Smith's understanding that the Committee believes
that there are some boards and commissions that should be abolished; those,
for example, whose tasks have been accomplished and no longer have a reason
for being. At this point they are trying to weigh the whole issue to
determine which ones should remain in the Charter, if any.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Water Board should remain in the
Charter, although the group recognized the need to streamline the Charter in
other ways.
Paul Eckman said that it is his understanding that the Charter Review
Committee would complete their task by the end of the year. They will make
a recommendation to the Council. The Council then passes a resolution
recommending the changes. The recommended changes will go to the voters in
the spring election. The Water Board secretary will distribute a list of
the Charter Committee members at the next meeting should Board members wish
to contact any of them.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Water Board Secretary