Minutes - Water Resources - 6/18/2001 DRAFT
WATER RESOi1RCES ADVISORY BOARD
FINAL MEETING MINUTES
June 18, 2001
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Robert Fiehweg, Jeannette Hillery, Cal Youngberg, Vicki Naber, Gil Barth
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Ned Williams, Alan Taylor, Carol Linn, Paul Matthews (from Integrated Utilities Group), Bob
Harberg, Robin Madel, secretary
AGENDA ITEM 1
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 2
Approval of May 21, 2001 Meeting Minutes
The minutes were approved and signed.
Vicki Naber motioned to approve the minutes.
Jeannette Hillery seconded.
The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM 3
General Citizen Participation
There was none.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 1
AGENDA ITEM 4
Public hearing, consideration and recommendation on South Boulder Creek Flood
Management and Mitigation Planning.
Alan Taylor gave a brief presentation about the project to date. This is the first time that the
project was presented to the WRAB. He was there to find out if the staff had provided enough
information to the Board, if they supported the staff recommendation to restudy the problem, if
they accepted the recommendations from the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the
Community Advisory Group (CAG), and if they had any revisions to the recommendations. He
gave the background on the project to date and he talked about the public involvement that has
taken place. He described the "Next Steps and Activities Program." The steps outline included:
1)Risk Analysis
2)Flood Preparedness
3)Flood Mitigation
4)Study Process
He discussed each of these steps with the help of Dr. Gilbert White, from the IRP, and Doretta
Hultquist and Alison Burchell from the CAG.
Doretta Hultquist discussed the 3 subgroups that formed under the CAG. She mentioned that
there was no public input allowed during the Phase A report preparation period. She discussed
the need for increased emergency preparedness efforts and she mentioned specifically warning
signs and sirens, notification and mock drills. She also discussed the CAG recommendations for
mitigation efforts.
Alison Burchell discussed the following:
1. The Taggart Engineering Associates study and the need for a new calibrated and verified
study
2. The city's efforts to preserve and maintain the flood management potential of the CU
property
3. A new study with greater public involvement
4. The need to hire an independent hydrologist/engineer that can determine the needs and
solutions of the situation without any bias.
5. The city's efforts to protect vulnerable citizens from potential damage by not postponing
certain mitigation efforts
6. She acknowledged the efforts of the city and the Boulder County Open Space Board.
7. She said it was important to have an environmental assessment prepared according to
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines.
8. She offered a two-dimensional hydrologic model that she said could be used to characterize
South Boulder Creek with more data.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 2
WRAB Questions
Gil Barth questioned the value of characterizing the creek. He asked whether the demands of all
interested parties would be met. He asked where the compromise is between channelizing the
creek (which the citizens and sponsors don't want) and meeting all the needs of the community.
Gilbert White discussed the level of flooding evaluated in the Taggart report. In the report, 100-
year flood levels were evaluated but recent decades have seen flooding at higher magnitudes than
that. He said it would be a mistake to plan around a 100-year flood and he described some steps
that could be done to evaluate the flooding on a limited basis while the hydrology is being
evaluated. He recommended taking a structure that could be used as a test case and determining
effects of damage at different water depths, independent of the magnitude of the flooding. He
said that some measures could be taken regardless of flow rates and frequencies.
Alison Burchell added that putting people in a flood plain unnecessarily and making them buy
flood insurance is problematic. She urged the city to be as responsible and cost effective with the
citizens as possible.
Alan Tam said that the study was considered an interim hydrology study and was very
conservative.
Doretta Hultquist said she didn't think that decisions would be made based on the Taggart
Report and that it is not clear if all the historical flooding is from South Boulder Creek but may
also be due to ditches.
Citizen Participation and WRAB Comment
Peter Gowen, 5494 Raritan Place, Boulder, 80303, said he is a member of the CAG but was
speaking on his own behalf. He recommended that the city elevate the issue of flooding to a
higher level because there are problems with South Boulder Creek and Four-mile Canyon Creek
as well. He said that the Utilities Master Plan had not been updated recently and recommended
that staff pursue that. He said that flooding needs to have the attention of the City Council and
the Planning Board. He recommended creating a liaison between the City Council and the staff
because the council doesn't have expertise in flood mitigation. He recommended holding a
public education forum called "Flood 101."
Ben Binder, 720 South 41st St., Boulder, 80305, discussed the cost of the solutions presented in
the Taggart Report and suggested that less expensive solutions exist. He said that the more
outrageous solutions, such as constructing a 70-foot high dam, were not taken seriously by
anyone except CU and he said CU has had a deleterious effect. He said it was at CU's insistence
that public input was not allowed during preparation of the report. He advocated using the old
gravel pits depressions as detention ponds.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 3
WRAB Comments
Cal Youngberg acknowledged that the hydrology of the study was questionable and agreed that
the study should be redone. Taggart prepared the study using a worst-case scenario. Youngberg
voiced his concerns about the broad set of staff recommendations made. He was concerned about
the time commitment for the staff, the funding involved and the ability to take the citizen's
groups through the entire process. He wanted to see a reasonable cost/benefit analysis for early
mitigation and he also said he would like to see CU, Boulder County and the consultant at the
table to negotiate the issues.
Alan Taylor described the six-month process where many activities will be initiated. He talked
about a sensitivity analysis for depths, creating a proposal for a hydrological study, a cost
estimate and allocation of funding, flood preparation activities and associated funding, and he
identified several issues that have to be dealt with. He said in the spring of 2002 he should have
more alternatives to evaluate.
Cal Youngberg advised him to not reject the Taggart Report altogether.
Alan Tam discussed the current state of sponsorship involved with the project. Cal Youngberg
iterated that this is a good time to elevate flood issues in the city. He also said that the county
should help pay for some of the costs of the outreach and education programs that are planned.
Jeannette Hillery said that this would be a good issue to use to raise awareness of countywide
emergency preparedness. She recommended conducting a "Flood Preparedness 101" course.
Bob Fiehweg asked if the city is restricting itself by not allowing certain options. Alan Tam
said that the city is trying to achieve the best balance between community values and cost-
effectiveness and meet as many community goals as possible. The IRP and the CAG have a high
level of agreement about the approach that should be taken. Cal Youngberg requested that the
staff make sure that the entire group is involved throughout the entire process (including all of
the more political group members).
The WRAB agreed that they would support the staff recommendations if the plan included
maintaining and enhancing the cohesiveness of the work groups and sponsors and if clear
milestones were established along with dates for those milestones.
Jeannette Hillery motioned to support the staff recommendation with the inclusions
described above.
Gil Barth seconded.
Alison Burchell recommended conducting a natural hazards workshop. She also asked the
WRAB if they are in a position to seek out other funding resources. Cal Youngberg stated that
the WRAB is a policy advisory board and recommended that the staff should evaluate other
funding sources. Ben Binder recommended that the public have full and open participation in the
next study. They also discussed incorporating the recommendations of the IRP into the
Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 4
Ellen Willis, 2895 Lafayette Dr., Boulder, 80305, said that she doesn't think that CU should be
a sponsor because they don't have the best interests of the citizens in mind. She doesn't agree
with the goal of protecting future development.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
AGENDA ITEM 5
Consideration of a recommendation to approve an InterGovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Town of Lafayette to construct a new pipeline from Boulder Creek.
Ned Williams gave a brief presentation about the project. The pipeline would divert water from
Boulder Creek upstream of the 75th St. wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and bring it to
Lafayette. The proposal is designed to settle the dispute and pending lawsuit suit between the
city of Boulder and the town of Lafayette over water rights in the Anderson Ditch. The issue still
needs to be presented to the City Council and the town of Lafayette. Also, the city has received
letters from ditch companies downstream from the WWTP asking the city not to support the IGA
because of potential impacts to water quality. The city will still meet all of its water quality
standards with the diversion and is prepared to meet future standard requirements. The WWTP is
not impacted by the diversion because the treatment methods are geared toward meeting
standards in low flow rates.
WRAB Questions
They discussed whether the existing permit allows a mixing zone below the WWTP. Water
quality standards are applied as effluent limitations and dilution is not allowed, but the permit
was written based on the flow rate in the creek.
They discussed Lafayette's water rights. They have water rights at 95u1 St. and at Anderson Ditch
(located at the mouth of Boulder Canyon). Lafayette has agreed to the diversion above the
WWTP because they will save on treatment costs. This agreement is a compromise for everyone
who has participated in the negotiations.
Citizen Participation and WRAB Comment
Dave Yardley, 1632 Broadway, Boulder, 80302, spoke on behalf of a group of shareholders in
the Lower Boulder Ditch Company. He spoke about the problem with increased nitrogen levels
in the creek. He described potential agricultural impacts from high nitrogen and the concurrent
economic impacts. He said that most crops that do well economically in this area are negatively
impacted by nitrogen and if Lafayette is allowed to divert the water, nitrogen in the creek will
increase. He said that stream standards are primarily set for fish and deal with ammonia levels
and are not based on agricultural uses. He said there is no stream standard for NO;. He said that
the issue of nitrogen in the water doesn't get much attention from staff, especially given how
much attention has been paid lately to flood issues. He said he realized that the IGA would
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 5
probably be passed at the city council meeting the following night and he was frustrated with the
short notice that he had to prepare for the issue.
Jeff Kahn, P.O. Box 978 Longmont, represents agricultural companies that divert water below
the WWTP. He said that Lafayette should get the same water quality as the ditch companies and
the only rights they have in Anderson Ditch are their part ownership in Baseline Reservoir. He
said that Lafayette leveraged their 1/160th of a share into a lawsuit and project that will end up
costing the city of Boulder $1M and Lafayette $4M. The result is that the ditch people will get
water that is higher in nitrogen. He said sooner or later the city will have requirements for
denitrification and when that comes the treatment costs will increase as a result of decreasing the
diluting flows in the mixing zone. He said it is a raw deal for the ditch companies and for the city
of Boulder.
Dave Yardley said that he had the materials compiled by Brown and Caldwell for the city of
Boulder permit renewal. Nitrogen removal was evaluated and costed in the study and 3
alternatives were presented. The capital costs are high. The ditch companies support nitrogen
removal and would like to see capital costs put into denitrification instead of diversion. He said
the ditch companies would pay their fair share of that cost.
Craig Anderson, 8564 WCR 7, Longmont, 80504, is one of the farmers that will potentially be
impacted by the IGA and he is also the president of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch
Company. He said to keep agriculture viable, they have to meet water quality standards or suffer
the consequences with crops. They purchased a sugar company, are running a cooperative and
are trying to make it all work. In losing the dilution factor, there will be one more impact to
agricultural viability in the area.
Peter Gowen, 5494 Raritan Place, Boulder, 80303, said he had no opinion on the issue but
wanted to share some insights he had about a similar situation he observed in Cherry Creek. He
said the water and wastewater commission involved in that decision decided that if discharges
met the permit requirements without regard to degradation of water supply downstream, there
was not a legal basis for the downstream users to ask the upstream dischargers to modify their
discharge. He also recommended to the city to not enter into the agreement thinking that
Lafayette has a "leg up" on the city and urged the city not to give in to legal threats if that was
the basis for going through with the arrangement. He acknowledged that there might be other
reasons for completing the deal that he wasn't aware of.
Robin Byers, 1530 Kalmia, Boulder, spoke in favor of the IGA. She said as a taxpayer in
Boulder she has watched how much money has been spent on the Anderson Ditch case and said
that the IGA will stop the flow of money into the case. She said she thought that a trail along the
pipeline would be a good addition to the trail system. She pointed out that just because the ditch
holders have senior rights they are not guaranteed water quality and she recommended to the
downstream ditch owners to settle their disputes about water quality in court.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 6
Peter Richards, 470 University, Boulder, 80302, spoke as a shareholder in the Anderson Ditch
Company. He said there should be some other options on the table and that there are other ways
to resolve the issue. He said the city was pressured into this option because of the upcoming
court date and he recommended that the city take time to resolve the issue.
Alison Richards, 470 University, Boulder, 80302, asked to have a trail easement along the
Union Pacific rail line if the agreement is passed.
Dave Yardley pointed out that water quality issues are not resolved in water court.
WRAB Comments
They discussed the IGA as a complete solution versus a band-aid approach. Vicki Naber said that
she would rather see a solution that addresses future standards. Jeannette Hillery added that the
Water Quality Control Commission is pulling together a group to evaluate the needs of
downstream users and to look at the impacts on the dischargers. She said the issue will not go
away.
They discussed the appropriateness of the current stream standards and the impending
requirements for denitrification. They discussed the option of cleaning up the water so that
Lafayette could divert water from below the WWTP. That option was not acceptable to
Lafayette. They discussed the fact that the agreement brings an end to the litigation and that
regardless of the agreement, the city will face denitrification requirements in the future.
They discussed whether or not this agreement supports farmers the way Boulder County does
with their open space purchases. Vicki Naber commented that eventually there would be no
agriculture left in Boulder.
They all agreed that the nitrogen issue would not go away regardless of whether the IGA gets
approved.
Cal Youngberg said that he believes the state should readdress the standards and supported the
agreement but had concerns about whether this was the best use of funds.
They settled on the following motion:
The WRAB supported the staff recommendation to support the Lafayette IGA recognizing that
the impacts to downstream users are counterproductive to the city's long-held reverence for
agricultural lands and open space and the WRAB recommends that the IGA parties discuss the
possibility of a trail along the Lafayette pipeline which follows the Union Pacific Railroad track
alignment.
Jeanette Hillery motioned.
Cal Youngberg seconded.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 7
Cal Youngberg stated that there are other avenues to deal with the water quality standards that
are more appropriate.
The vote was 4-1 in favor of the motion. Vicki Naber was opposed.
AGENDA ITEM 6
2001 Utility Rate Study and Plant Investment Fee.
Carol Linn presented the background on the rate study. Earlier this year, the Integrated Utilities
Group was hired to complete the study. Some of the study sections were included in the packet
but no specific details were included because the details are still changing. She said the city
would be receiving the model being prepared by IUG in August. The staff will use it to calculate
fees for 2002 then the final report will be published.
WRAB Questions
They discussed the block/rate structure and the increase of 25% for Block 2. Cal Youngberg
asked if that is designed to be an incentive for water conservation. Carol Linn said that the
numbers are still being calculated and that figure may change. The bulk of revenues come from
Blocks 1 and 2 but the breakdown is not available.
They discussed increases in Plant Investment Fees and how they compare to other communities
along the Front Range. They also discussed the nature of the model used to calculate the fees,
whether it is proprietary or if it can be adjusted. Paul Matthews with IUG, the company creating
the model, said that the model could be modified as necessary.
AGENDA ITEM 7
Public hearing, consideration and recommendation on the Utilities Division 2002-2007
Capital Improvement Program Including Preliminary Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget,
Monthly Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees.
Carol Linn went over the details of the operations budget. She said that the budget materials
were submitted to the city manager on June S, 2001. She went over the budget overview sheet
and said that the info was presented at a gross level.
Bob Harberg went over the highlights of the CIP budget. He discussed the main points of the
water, wastewater and flood control budgets.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 8
WRAB Questions
They discussed the rehabilitation of the water distribution lines. The contract was written for
$100/ft of pipe replaced and there is $2M budgeted for 2002. This will cover about 1% of the
280 miles of water lines in the city.
They discussed the public process outlined on the last page of the CIP overview and the schedule
for submitting the CIP to the Planning Board and the City Council. Bob Fiehweg asked Bob
Harberg to keep the WRAB informed of the results of presentations to other boards.
They discussed any permit requirements that might be associated with reconfiguration of
watershed facilities. The property is city-owned but the city will still have to apply for certain
permits.
Finally, they discussed the Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CPDES) permit
and whether the budget was written in anticipation of a renewed permit. It was written that way
for the WWTP.
Jeannette Hillery motioned to recommend to the Planning Board and the City Council
the Utilities Division 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program Including Preliminary
Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget, Monthly Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees.
Gil Barth seconded.
The vote was 4-0, in favor of the motion. Vicki Naber had left because she was ill.
AGENDA ITEM 8
A. Matters from the Board
■ Bob Fiehweg discussed the Environmental Advisory Board meeting he and Cal Youngberg
attended on June 14, 2001 to discuss fluoridation of drinking water. He said the public
response to the issue was mixed and that people presented studies to support whatever their
viewpoint was. The EAB asked the WRAB to reconsider the issue at a future WRAB
meeting. Ned Williams added that the board of health in Ft. Collins or Laramie County will
be organizing a panel to evaluate the issue and he recommended that Boulder monitor closely
the meetings of that panel.
■ Cal Youngberg announced that there would be a TMDL group meeting on Wednesday June
20, 2001 at 2:00 in Longmont. They were anticipating participation by all the communities
within the Boulder Creek basin.
B. Matters from the Staff
■ Ned Williams reminded the WRAB that the next meeting would cover the Greenways CIP
and would be a joint meeting with the Transportation Advisory Board.
■ Ned Williams reported that the next Barker Reservoir meeting would be on recreation and
would be held in Nederland in August.
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 9
AGENDA ITEM 9
Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Agenda
There will be two upcoming meetings:
1. A joint meeting with the TAB to discuss the Greenways Program CIP on June 25, 2001.
2. The regular meeting on July 16, 2001, which may cover Bear Canyon Creek floodplain re-
mapping. This meeting may be cancelled if the Bear Canyon Creek item gets moved to
August.
AGENDA ITEM 10
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:01 p.m.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
• June 25, 2001, 7:30 p.m., Greenways Program CIP joint discussion with the Transportation
Advisory Board, location TBD
• July 16, 2001, 7:00 p.m., regular meeting at the City Yards, lunchroom located at 5050 East
Pearl
Minutes approved by
Date
Water Resources Advisory Board
Full Minutes
June 18, 2001
Page 10