Loading...
Summary Minutes - Water Resources - 6/18/2001 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: June 18, 2001 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS - Robert Fiehweg, Jeannette Hillery, Cal Youngberg, Vicki Naber, Gil Barth STAFF - Ned Williams, Alan Taylor, Dr. Gilbert White (from the Independent Review Panel), Doretta Hultquist and Alison Burchell (from the Citizen's Advisory Group), Carol Linn, Paul Matthews (from the Integrated Utilities Group) and Robin Madel, secretary WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:11 m. Agenda Item 2 - Approval of May 21, 2001 Meeting Minutes Jeannette Hillery motioned to approve the minutes. Vicki Naber seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Agenda Item 3 - General Citizen Participation There was none. General Citizen Participation was closed. Agenda Item 4 - Public hearing, consideration and recommendation on South Boulder Creek Flood Management and Mitigation Planning (Staff - Alan Taylor). Alan Tam 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 Huhquist discussed the 3 subgroups that formed under the CAG. She mentioned that there was no public input allowed during the Phase A report preparation eriod. She discussed the need for increased emergency Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 1 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 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. WRAB Questions Gil Barth questioned the value of characterizing the creek. He asked whether all the demands of all the 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 can 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 415` 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. WRAB Comments WRAB comments covered the following: ■ An acknowledgement that the study should be redone Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 2 ■ Concerns about the accountability of the staff recommendations ■ The need to get CU and Boulder County involved in the process ■ The schedule for completing the activities recommended by staff and the CAG ■ Elevating flood issues with the City Council ■ Paying for staff resources for all the outreach involved in the staff recommendations ■ Raising county-wide awareness of flood emergency preparedness ■ Meeting as many goals as possible while maintaining cost effectiveness ■ Keeping the entire group of players involved throughout the entire process ■ Setting clear milestones and dates of completion for the work Bob Fiehweg said that the WRAB 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. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Further discussion included finding out what other funding sources are available and the role that the WRAB would play in that. They also discussed incorporating the recommendations of the IRP into the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan. Ellen Willis, 2895 Lafayette Dr., Boulder 80305, said that she didn't think that CU had the best interests of the citizens in nand and she said she doesn't agree with their goal of protecting future development on their site. 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 (Staff - Ned Williams). Ned Williams gave a brief presentation about the project. The pipeline would divert water from Boulder Creek upstream of the 75`h St. wastewater treatment plant 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. WRAB Questions WRAB questions covered the following: ■ Existing and future permit requirements ■ Water quality standards, flow rates and mixing zones ■ The safety of WWTP effluent ■ The Anderson Ditch issue of dispute Citizen Participation and WRAB Comment Dave Yardley, 1632 Broadway, Boulder, 80302, spoke on behalf of a group of share holders 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 NO3. 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 probably be passed at the city council Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 3 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 1/160'1' 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 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 may 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. 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 WRAB comments covered the following: ■ The IGA as a complete solution versus a band-aid solution ■ How to address the nitrogen issue and what standards are anticipated in the future ■ The nitrogen issue that was raised in the Thomton/FRICO case ■ The appropriate location for resolving water quality issues ■ The message sent to agricultural users in approving the IGA ■ Whether or not there is hard evidence of downstream damage from diverting flow ■ Not letting eventual denitrification influence the decision to support or reject the IGA recommendation They settled on the following motion: The WRAB supports 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 Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 4 which follows the Union Pacific Railroad track alignment. Jeanette Hillery motioned. Cal Youngberg seconded. The vote was 4-1 in favor of the motion. Vicki Naber voted no. Agenda Item 6 - 2001 Utility Rate Study and Plant Investment Fee (Carol Linn). 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 will be receiving the model being prepared by IUG in August. The staff will use it to calculate fees for 2002 then the report will be published. WRAB Questions WRAB questions covered the following: ■ The block/rate structure, revenue and incentives for water conservation ■ Increases in Plant Investment Fees and how they compare to other communities along the Front Range ■ The nature of the model and whether it is proprietary or if it can be adjusted 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, Bob Harburg and Ned Williams). Carol Linn went over the details of the operations budget. She said that the budget materials were submitted to the city manager on June 8, 2001. She went over the budget overview sheet and said that the info was presented at a gross level. Bob Harburg went over the highlights of the CIP budget. He discussed the main points of the water, wastewater and flood control budgets. WRAB Questions WRAB questions covered the following: • Rehab of the water distribution lines • The public process outlined on the last page of the CIP overview • The schedule for getting the CIP to the Planning Board and the City Council • Permit requirements for reconfiguration of watershed facilities • The budget associated with Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CPDES) perinitting 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. Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 5 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. Agenda Item 7 - Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Agenda There are 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 will cover the Bear Canyon Creek flood plain re-mapping process. Agenda Item 8 -Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: ■ June 25, 2001, 7:30 p.m., Greenways Program CIP, at the West Senior Center Creekside Room. ■ Jul 16, 2001, 7:00 .m., regular meeting, at the City Yards in the Cafeteria. Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes June 18, 2001 Page 6