Loading...
Minutes - Water Resources - 5/21/2001 DRAFT WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD FINAL MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2001 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Robert Fiehweg, Jeannette Hillery, Cal Youngberg, Vicki Naber, Gil Barth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Ned Williams, Chris Rudkin, Randy Crittendon, Ridge Dorsey, Brad Segal, Robin Madel, secretary AGENDA ITEM 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 Approval of April 16, 2001 Meeting Minutes The minutes were approved and signed. Jeannette Hillery motioned to approve the minutes. Vicki Naber seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Cal Youngberg had not yet arrived. AGENDA ITEM 3 General Citizen Participation There was none. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM 4 Staff update and discussion on drinking water fluoridation. Ned Williams introduced the topic and why it is being presented at the meeting. He said there have been a number of newspaper articles about fluoridation in drinking water that has led the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) to discuss it at their next meeting on June 14, 2001. The EAB may be taking a vote of support or dissent about the issue. Chris Rudkin wanted to provide the WRAB with up-to-date information about fluoridation of drinking water. He discussed several studies that had been performed to evaluate the effects of fluoridation. He also discussed the recent decision by the Ft. Collins Water Board to recommend discontinuing fluoridation of drinking water. Boulder started fluoridating its water in 1969 after a citizen vote created an ordinance to fluoridate. He reviewed the history of fluoridation in Boulder and in Colorado and referenced the recent Boulder citizen survey that showed only 25% of respondents are slightly or strongly opposed to fluoridation. He said it is timely to bring this issue to the WRAB because the EAB is also examining it. WRAB Questions The Ft. Collins water board made the recommendation to stop fluoridation. They decided that fluoridation wasn't a necessary or appropriate mechanism for fluoride delivery. The WRAB discussed other appropriate mechanisms for fluoridation (if methods other than drinking water are used). The staff discussed citizen concerns that have been received through the Web site and phone calls. In the citizen survey, the staff hypothesized that more people would be opposed to fluoridation but they were surprised to find out that the majority of citizens favored it. The benefits of fluoridation were discussed. The feedback from dental health programs within state and county health departments is that they are both in favor of fluoridation because it fights tooth decay effectively. The water quality control division at the health department is neutral about it but they monitor application of it. Jeannette Hillery pointed out that it is a good preventive measure for low-income children that might not otherwise get decent dental care. Boulder's water is low in natural fluoride so it must be added. In Colorado Springs, the water is naturally high in fluoride (in fact the level is higher than recommended). They have never added fluoride and there is very little incidence of tooth decay in the town. Cal Youngberg said that he received a phone call from Randy Weiner on the EAB. Youngberg said that he would attend the EAB meeting on June 14. Cal questioned whether people drinking bottled water without fluoride have a higher incidence of tooth decay. Alternate forms of administration were discussed. Dentists typically apply treatments. Randy Crittenden pointed out that orally administered lower doses are more effective than higher doses. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 2 Health departments favor fluoridation because its benefits have been demonstrated and because it has become an entrenched practice. There is a mechanism for monitoring for negative effects although there has not been conclusive evidence that negative effects exist. The health departments did not indicate any concern about negative effects. There are on-going cancer studies but most studies that have shown any link with negative effects have come from overdosing the subjects. Other negative effects being studied include brittle bones and white spots on teeth (fluorosis). Boulder has a good delivery system that maintains reliable levels of fluoride in drinking water. The levels are checked four times per day and reports are sent to the state on a monthly basis. The city has received awards for its monitoring program. The city uses food grade fluoride that is a waste by-product and it is delivered in liquid form to minimize handling by the staff. Citizen Participation and WRAB Comment Henry Eaton, 2180 Sunshine Canyon Dr., Boulder, is a retired dentist that led the campaign to get Boulder to fluoridate its water in 1969. He said in his opinion there has never been as effective or safe a public health issue as this. He said the original studies came from Colorado Springs, which has three times the drinking water limit of naturally occurring fluoride in their water. He said that fluorosis (white spots on teeth) was the only problem reported. In his dental practice he used to see a lot of cavities and tooth decay, especially in children but he said it almost disappeared after fluoridation began. He is amazed by the comment made by the board in Ft. Collins that they will save money by not administering fluoride now that tooth decay is no longer a problem. He feels this is a health matter and not an EAB matter and he said he spoke with the city attorney who agreed with him. He explained the process by which fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. He spoke about the previous elections that attempted to end fluoridation and about how nasty those campaigns got. WRAB Comments Jeannette Hillery asked if any longevity studies had been done in Colorado Springs. Eaton said he had been out of dentistry for 20 years but he didn't think any links had been found between diseases and fluoridation. He also pointed out that with 175 million people receiving fluoridated water, if there were any links they would show up very clearly. Bob Fiehweg handed out copies of an e-mail that Paul Komor sent to him referencing a number of studies about the topic. The paper does not draw conclusions but presents the basic issue as prevention of decay versus fluorosis. The authors leave the decisions to decision-makers. The WRAB agreed that the issue belongs with the county and state health boards. The EAB meeting will be June 14, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at 1720 13" St. Bob Fiehweg and Cal Youngberg agreed to attend the meeting. If the EAB votes against fluoridation, the City Council could Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 3 decide to hold an election on it, in which case they would probably have the WRAB evaluate it and make a formal recommendation. AGENDA ITEM 5 Agenda Item 5 - Staff overview and discussion on the Industrial Pretreatment Program (Staff - Ridge Dorsey). Ridge Dorsey gave a presentation about the program. He spoke from slides that were included in the packets. He said the same presentation had been given to a group of consultants and the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. Dorsey's slides covered the following topics: The Definition of Industrial Pretreatment - treating water before it goes to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) The Goals of the Program - protect pass-through and interference with the WWTP (e.g. glucose or ammonia and PCE) Implementation of the Program - by the EPA, state, city and special districts Pretreatment Authority - from the Clean Water Act, state and federal regulations and local authorities Pretreatment Standards - prohibited discharges General Prohibitions of Pretreatment - interference and pass-through Specific Prohibitions of Pretreatment - corrosives, flammables, explosives, obstructives, thermals Local Limits - list of metals given (e.g. dental offices linked to higher levels of silver and mercury in the WWTP headworks) Federal Limits - categorical standards versus local limits and why federal limits aren't enough Local Limits development - treatment plant design, biosolids disposal, NPDES permits, water quality standards (e.g. auto shops are not regulated by the EPA but they are by the city) Dorsey said the city strives to educate the public and business community about being low- impact to the WWTP. They work on educational outreach and information survey programs. The customers are reached through building permit programs and they go out knocking on doors. There is usually good cooperation with the businesses. Boulder's WWTP - 16 MGD Metro Wastewater Reclamation District - 160 MGD Types of Local Limits - technically based limitations, general and specific prohibitions, Best Management Practices The "nuts and bolts" of Local Limits - Boulder's metals limits are more stringent than Metro's Enforcement - proactive, the city doesn't have to do much. The city can impose a fine. Types of Noncompliance - violations of effluent limits, failure to report, missed compliance milestones, failure to notify, misrepresentation Factors Determining Response to Noncompliance - seriousness and duration of violation, effect on receiving water, effect on WWTP, history and attitude of user Water Resources Advisoty Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 4 Tools to Deter Violators - informal contacts up through civil suit and termination of service - innovative enforcement techniques Pro-activity in Boulder - stay one step ahead in pretreatment Citizen Participation and WRAB Comment There was none. WRAB Questions Companies can get info about the IP Program through the Web site and brochures. The city provides general guidance and reminds homeowners about the hazardous waste collection site. The PACE program targets specific industries and the city tries to work closely with that program. The last audit done by the city was two years ago. AGENDA ITEM 6 A. Matters from the Board • Jeannette Hillery said that she had gone to all of the South Boulder Creek reach meetings and she's looking forward to the update that will be given next month. She said the meetings have been productive and Alan Taylor is doing an outstanding job. B. Matters from the Staff • Ned Williams reported that the Wonderland Creek project is underway and the major excavation work is done for the channel. • Ned Williams reported that there would be three Barker Reservoir meetings during the summer. The secretary will e-mail the dates of the meetings to the WRAB members. AGENDA ITEM 7 Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Agenda There will be two meetings in June: 1. The regular meeting on June 18, 2001, which will cover the South Boulder Creek flood plan, the 2002 budget, CIP and rate increases and the Inter-Governmental Agreement with Lafayette. 2. A joint meeting with the TAB to discuss the Greenways Program CIP on June 25, 2001. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 8 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: • June 18, 2001, 7:00 p.m., regular meeting at the City Yards, lunchroom located at 5050 East Pearl • June 25, 2001, 7:30 p.m., Greenways Program CIP joint discussion with the Transportation Advisory Board, location TBD Minutes approved by Date Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 6