HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.24 WRAB MinutesWRAB Minutes
10/21/2024
Page No. 1
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: 21 October 2024
Contact Information for Person Preparing Minutes: Karen Sheridan, 303-441-3208
Board Members Present: John Berggren, Amy Broughton, Katie Bridges
Board Members Absent: Steve Maxwell
Staff Present: Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities
Joanna Bloom, Utilities Deputy Director of Policy and Planning
Chris Douville, Utilities Deputy Director of Operations
Chris Douglass, Utilities Engineering Senior Manager
Brandon Coleman, Storm/Flood Engineering Manager
Debbie Fisher, Storm/Flood Project Manager
Michael Parrish, Water Quality Compliance Program Manager
Meghan Wilson Outcalt, Water Quality Senior Manager
Kate Dunlap, Drinking Water Quality Manager
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Manager
John Stoddard, Water Treatment Manager
Karen Sheridan, Board Secretary
Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order [6:00 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 – Approval of 9 September 2024 Meeting Minutes [6:03 p.m.]
Motion to approve: Broughton Seconded by: Bridges
Vote: 3:0
Agenda Item 3 – Public Participation and Comment [6:05 p.m.]
Lynne Segal: Thanks, Joanna, for the answer. I want to bring up this energy issue with hot water, well,
the air-source heat pump hot water heaters. And I wanted to know if they use any more water because,
as I've told you before, I'm throwing away 90% of my water just waiting for the water to get hot and
they're no faster. But what Joanna said, which was important, is that they use a lot less energy, are 5
times more efficient than conventional gas hot water heaters, dramatically low utility bills and carbon
emissions. So this affects, you know, the system of water treatment and the whole thing that goes on
with the use of water. As Joanna said in her own words, although there's no change in water use at the
user scale, there is a general recognition that under the water energy nexus, reduced energy use can
reduce regional water use tied to power generation. You know, Joanna should be like beyond the city
manager. She is like completely amazing the way she thinks. I really can't say enough good things about
Joanna Bloom. But to the general public, please; if you have a hot water heater go out, consider getting a
heat pump hot water heater. There's more complexity of the installation. If you get an AO something
brand instead of Rheem, it will have a much lower decibel measurement (you know you hear sounds),
but it would be lower than that of a regular refrigerator. If you get the right brand and you get it installed
properly, you won't have too much cold, you can egress the cold air to the outside and dramatically
affect our utility. And I'm hoping that we can go with municipalization in 2025. And I also wanted to
talk a bit about the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and the issues of water didn't come up at all. And you
know, this is the limiting factor in our BVCP. It's the main thing. The big-time issue is water. If we don't
have water, you know. Look at Gaza and Israel right now. You know the straw industry has gone way
up because they have to drink from a straw out of puddles, and they have one toilet for 4,000 people, or
they could drink out of the toilet, but there's not even any toilet water, so we need to consider what water
we have to be able to extremely overpopulate the Front Range. Thanks.
Nancy Trigg: I'm Nancy Trigg. I live on the south side of Edgewood that you all have heard much about
over the last year. First, I wanted to thank the team who actually did do the evaluation under Edgewood
that we requested. I appreciate that we were heard and that that was looked into. But I did review all the
documents and it sounds like you all are planning or the intention is to eliminate that option tonight. And
I just wanted to weigh in on that before anything is eliminated. I understand that the best decision has to
be made but it feels premature to be eliminating any options right now and I'm just going to go over my
reasons why I feel that way. First, and again I might be wrong on my information, but my understanding
is that the original plan that was made of this section behind South Edgewood or south of Edgewood
WRAB Minutes
10/21/2024
Page No. 2
was done around 2017 or 2018, and I believe we're working with numbers that are no longer accurate in
terms of cost of this project. I think it's going to be significantly more than what is currently stated in the
plan. We also talked to the engineer who worked on that plan shortly after it was released to the public
around 2018 I believe it was, and the engineer we spoke with, said that it did not take into consideration
the slope. Stabilizing the slope, which I don't know the degrees but it's significant, behind the homes is
going to be a huge undertaking that I actually think could put the homes at more risk below it.
Additionally, we had an assessment done. We could only afford to have it done for the first 8 houses, I
believe, from the church west. But just that assessment alone, there are 262 trees in that section; 136 of
those were deemed to be in fair condition and 86 in good condition, as opposed to only 40 that are dead
or dying. And I've heard multiple times the plan was to remove dead and dying trees, and to have to
remove the number of healthy trees could also put this area at a higher risk for flooding because those
trees are stabilizing the area. So, I want to ask that that be taken into consideration as well. And then the
last thing I want to correct is, I've heard multiple times in meetings that these homes are in the high
hazard zone, which was true prior to the last flood, but the more recent assessments put these homes in
conveyance; they are no longer high hazard and I know removing these from high hazard has been a part
of the conversation, but they're already out of that zone when it comes to Boulder City rules. So, I just
wanted to kind of set the record straight and ask that no option be taken off the table until the full
conceptual design is created with costs and real impact. Thanks.
Erin Meschke: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meschke. I live in Boulder and
represent myself. I have already presented these comments to the Boulder County Commissioners and
the Boulder City Council but wanted to make sure I was able to address my concerns with the Water
Resources Advisory Council as well. Three (3) weeks ago, the EPA lost a landmark case against the use
of fluoride in drinking water. This case spanned seven (7) years, encountering a lot of government and
agency meddling and roadblocks along the way, but a verdict was finally issued by a Federal court on
September 25th. The court deemed fluoridation a quote “unreasonable risk to the health of children”, and
the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The court found that claims of safety made over 75 years
by the EPA, the American Dental Association and the CDC were, in fact, not supported by evidence.
Here are a couple pertinent paragraphs from the 84-page decision, quote “The issue before this court is
whether the plaintiffs have established by preponderance of evidence that the fluoridation of drinking
water at levels typical in the United States, poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public
within the meaning of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act. For the reasons set forth below, the
court so finds, specifically, the court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter, the level
presently considered optimal in the United States (and as a side note also in Boulder County) poses an
unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. The court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury,
a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.” One thing the EPA cannot do,
however, in the face of this court's finding is to ignore that risk. As we await the EPA's rulemaking
proceedings, policymakers like yourselves need to be asking if we should continue adding a
neurotoxicant to our drinking water. Given the lengthy nature of this trial, it is likely the EPA will also
drag its feet in directing the removal of fluoride from drinking water. So that's why I'm asking you for
local action now. Soon my family's water will come from a well, and I will bypass this whole fluoride
issue, even though this will not affect me personally, I am choosing to engage for those in our
community who do not know about the harmful nature of fluoride or cannot afford the extra steps it
requires to remove this neurotoxicant as well as other endocrine disrupting chemicals found in Boulder's
water. This precedent-setting decision is enough for city officials to fast track the immediate removal of
fluoride from our water supply. Thank you.
Lillian Hoodes: So, thank you for the opportunity. I wanted to speak to the Upper Goose Creek Flood
mitigation project as a parent, property owner and somebody who lives along the creek in the high
hazard zone and also as a gardener and somebody who's really passionate about native plants and
landscapes. And so first as a parent and a property owner, I'm very grateful to the city for taking the time
and spending the money to mitigate the risk to our family and home. My husband was in the house in
the 2013 floods, and we have to discuss an evacuation strategy every time it rains. I know the city has
faced criticism and opposition, and I'm very grateful that they've nevertheless pushed to protect families
like mine but I do understand that some of the more vocal opponents to the plan for Reach 6 don't own
property in the high hazard zone, and that those folks might be more concerned about the wildlife, plants
and trees along Goose Creek, and so I also wanted to speak to the project as someone who spends a lot
of time working in her yard and garden, which both abut the creek, and who's passionate about
encouraging native plant species and the birds and animals to which they provide shelter. Long story
short, and this is knowledge gained from many hours just trying to slash through shrubbery in my
WRAB Minutes
10/21/2024
Page No. 3
backyard, but the Goose Creek channel is clogged with invasive plants and non-native species. The
Russian olive, split willows, Siberian elm, buckthorn and multiflora rose along the corridor are
aggressive. They choke out the native plant life and I know this again because I've been trying to battle
them back in my own yard. Removing them will allow for native plant species to proliferate, and having
seen the city's work in other parts of Boulder, I'm very confident that the city will, in fact, transform
Goose Creek from what's now an overgrown urban drainage into a thriving native habitat. In short, I'm
very grateful, again, both for the city's efforts to protect me, my husband and our 3-year-old daughter,
and for their sensitivity to the very beautiful and unique corridor behind my home. I genuinely
appreciate their consideration of alternative solutions, but before we go into another flood season, I just
urge the city to avoid any additional delays, so that we can more swiftly protect life and property, and so
that we can as soon as possible allow for space and time for those native plant species to fill in the
corridor. And that's it. Thank you.
Peggy Bashline: Eleven p.m., 9/11/13, the memories are engraved. I cannot argue the desire to control
and protect. In the early eighties I literally froze at the wheel while floating down Arapahoe in my Buick
during a raging downpour of hail and water. I understand the fear. No one will ever know all that is
weather and water. In 1988, Boulder's flood experts attempted to physically remove all houses along
South Edgewood. They proposed our homes would flood and float, but they did not in 2013,
experiencing little to no damage. Once again we receive cyclic punishment, now asking us to accept and
receive, not exit potential floodwaters. The city was wrong with its past predictions and suddenly wants
to change its mind, using us as an experiment just 50 feet from our back doors. Are they actually trying
to have us flood with such an about face? The reality is, nobody can begin to guess the location and
dumping concentrations weather will offer at any moment. Consider North Carolina. Yes, neighbors
considered in the safer flood zones along Floral and other areas experienced damage. But to now attempt
to pass the brunt to Edgewood residents is unconscionable. For decades we have lived with the city's
most dire of predictions. Oddly, the exact opposite, and what our private surveyor proposed and
composed in writing in the early nineties, is exactly what occurred. The city was wrong. With agendas
unknown, my local government offers no source of trust to this member of community who has
watched, lived and learned from the repeated attacks to acquire this small strip of property. I cannot
wrap my head around the fact my city wants to demolish an entire thriving wildlife corridor. All the talk
of global warming and the environment-related musings of what Boulder deems fact now appears in the
forefront a hypocritical farce. I do not understand how over 300 corridor supporters gathered in record
time means nothing as their wishes fall on robotic blind eyes and deaf ears. Not one of the hordes of
people I have solicited see an ounce of merit in disrupting or destroying the healthy, mature trees and
expansive land behind South Edgewood. We all know in one way or another we're sitting ducks, part of
the herd, and vulnerable to any number of tragedies. To my city, if your plans are providing irrefutable
hope, remember the Buick. Thank you.
Staff Response to Public Comment
Director Taddeucci stated the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan would be discussed later in the
meeting. Discussion tonight will focus on a second look at a piped alternative under Edgewood Drive
but no decisions have been made yet in the design about the number of trees that may or may not need to
be removed. With each alternative some trees will need to be removed. The Utilities Department is
aware of the fluoride court case and following it closely. The city is currently meeting the regulations
and recommendations for fluoride addition to our drinking water, as part of our charter and city code.
Regulations will continue to be closely monitored and respond to changes as necessary.
Agenda Item 4 – Upper Goose/Twomile Canyon Creek Flood Project Update [6:26 p.m.]
Debbie Fisher, Storm/Flood Project Manager, presented this item.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Boulder includes 16 major drainageways and has the highest flooding risk in the State of
Colorado. In 2023, City Council approved a flood mitigation plan for two of these drainageways, the
Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek watersheds. The project is needed to protect the safety
of the community and improve the ecosystem of our drainageways. Community feedback heard
throughout the planning process included themes such as preservation of the natural landscape and
wildlife corridors, concerns about impacts to individual properties, and a sense of urgency to complete
flood projects.
WRAB Minutes
10/21/2024
Page No. 4
Since that time, the community has expressed ongoing concerns over disturbance and restoration of the
open channel along a portion of Goose Creek called Reach 6. To explore the possibility of avoiding
disturbance to this reach of the stream and instead building the project under Edgewood Drive, the city
took a closer look at a piped alternative. Unfortunately, the piped alternative does not eliminate Reach 6
stream channel disturbance as intended. The investigation determined that a piped alternative could not
intercept and divert all flood water to Edgewood Drive, would involve extensive construction
disturbance to front yards on both sides of Edgewood Drive, and would cost significantly more, among
other issues. In part because a piped alternative would not avoid disturbance as hoped, and restoration of
the existing creek would still be necessary, the project will proceed with the open channel alternative
identified in the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of this memo is to provide WRAB and the community
with a project update and an opportunity to ask questions about Goose Creek Reach 6.
WRAB Board Discussion Included:
• Request for clarification of percentage of water not able to be captured by culverts.
• Question if the Floral alternative is similar type and size.
• Request to describe difference in size of footprint to rehabilitate with different alternatives.
• Question when property owners can expect to be engaged by the city.
• Question about basis for estimated cost of channel solution.
• Question about cost of Edgewood analysis.
Agenda Item 5 – Backflow Prevention Program BRC Updates [7:05 p.m.]
Michael Parrish, Water Quality Compliance Program Manager, presented this item.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Boulder is committed to providing safe, high-quality drinking water for the community,
including protecting drinking water from backflow events. Backflow is the reverse flow from a
customer’s water system into the city’s water distribution system, typically caused by a sudden loss of
pressure, such as a large main break, in the city’s system. Backflow is a public health risk and is
prevented by backflow prevention assemblies installed on water service lines or plumbing fixtures. State
regulations and Boulder Revised Code require most non-single-family water connections to have
backflow prevention assemblies that are owned and maintained by the property owner. Although in most
cases the city is not the owner of these assemblies, the city is responsible for enforcing customer
compliance with all state and city regulations related to the installation, maintenance and testing of these
assemblies.
The purpose of this memo is to update WRAB on proposed code changes and a new City Manager Rule
to enhance backflow prevention enforcement and associated regulatory compliance and provide
additional tools to protect public health and the drinking water supply.
WRAB Board Discussion Included:
• Question if the late-notice postcard will advertise the potential late fees.
• Question if the same people year over year are out of compliance.
• Question regarding individual versus multifamily shutoff fees.
• Question regarding different rates for different meter sizes.
• Question regarding who does backflow testing.
Agenda Item 6 – Matters from Board [7:28 p.m.]
No matters were presented.
Agenda Item 7 – Matters from Staff [7:29 p.m.]
• Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
- Kickoff event at Dairy Arts well attended.
- City departments represented.
- Overarching guidance document includes planning and growth elements, service levels.
- Council discussing planning reserve in Area 3.
- Utilities staff team supporting Planning Department on studies.
• Budget Approval
WRAB Minutes
10/21/2024
Page No. 5
- Approved unanimously.
- Appreciation expressed by councilmember for investment in infrastructure.
Agenda Item 8 – Discussion of Future Schedule [7:32 p.m.]
• November: Lead Service Line Inventory Update, Utility Billing Portal Update, 63rd Water
Treatment Plant Capital Projects Tour
• December: No meeting.
• January: Year in Review.
Agenda Item 9 – Adjournment [7:33 p.m.]
Motion to adjourn by: Broughton Seconded by: Bridges
Motion Passes 3:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be held in hybrid format on Monday, November 18, at 6:00 p.m.
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
Board Chair: _________________________ Board Secretary: ____________________________
Date: _______________________________ Date:______________________________________
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page via the Access Meeting Agendas and Materials link.
Water Resources Advisory Board | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov)
11/21/2024 11/21/2024