HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - February 23, 2009 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Adviso Board
DATE OF MEETING: February 23, 2009
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303-441-3266
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS -Bart Miller, Robin Byers, William DeOreo [Kelly DiNatale and Susan Lott absent]
STAFF-Ned Williams; Carol Ellinghouse; Joanna Crean; Bret Linenfelser; Randy Crittenden; Niall
Stewart' Bob Harber • Nick Worle ;Michele Wind; Vicki Jones; Suzanne Lieberman - Secre
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL UASI-JUDICIAL
Agenda Item 1-Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 -Meeting Minutes -December 15, 2008 and January 12, 2009.
Motion: Byers -Move to approve December 15, 2008 minutes as amended.
Secouded: DeOreo
Vote: 3-0 iu favor, Motion passed
Motion: DeOreo -Move to approve January 12, 2009 minutes as amended.
Secouded: Miller
Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed
Ageuda Item 3 -Public Participation and Comment.
There was none.
Agenda Item 4
Matters from Board -
• E-mail re: city's policy on grouudwater use. Byers: A woman sent WRAB an e-mail about
groundwater but Byers can't remember e-mailer's name or gist of request; something about
improper groundwater use. Williams: That was Mazilyn Jorzie and Joe Taddeucci has met with
heron Source Water Master Plan and discussed how the document addresses city's approach to
groundwater.
• Thunderbird Lake mauagement status. Miller: Can WRAB get an update on Thunderbird
Lake vote at Council? Williams: Council approved Option D, adding potable water through
multiple fills per year over three yeazs, and asked staff to return with reduced overall cost for
implementing the option. Miller: What kind of water? Williams: Treated water. Byers: Which
staff involved? Williams: Parks and Recreation and Utilities working together, with Parks as lead
agency. Byers: One of some of Council members' major concerns was with cost-constraints for
multiple fills in terms of having to potentially cut into Parks' budget and in terms of equity issues
of spending a disproportionate amount on one park.
Matters from Staff-
• Plaut investment tees. Williams: Revised on second reading February 17`" by Council; third
reading March 3rd. Change was implementing five-yeaz phase-in for stormwater PIFs.
• Study Session with Council scheduled Apri128'": Williams: Topics will be floodplain
management and water rights and legislation (state and federal). Miller: Update on existing issues
or discussion on future issues and proposals? Williams: Both, to try to give Council a better
understanding of process and issues. Byers: Is city actively lobbying on any bills (e.g.
augmentation bill ortax-credit bill on in-stream flow rights)? Williams: Not sure about in-stream
flow rights bill but city actively lobbies for bills in state and federal legislative agendas via Carl
Castillo and city's newly-hired water lobbyist, Joan Green. DeOreo: WRAB member should
attend study session. Byers: Two augmentation bills in the current session, one from Adams
County.
• Source Water Master Plan u date: Williams: Plana roved b Plannin Board and scheduled
WRAB Summary
February 23, 2009
Page No. 1
for council review April 7` .
• Boulder Reservoirzebra/quagga mussel issue. Williams: Utilities staff working with Parks
and Recreation on invasive species management of [he mussels in reservoir. Looking at option of
increasing boating fees, and continuing 2008 quarantine and tagging progam before use. Byers:
Steam-cleaning? Williams: City not steam-cleaning now. Byers: Managing both zebra and
quagga mussels? Williams: Yes.
• Impact otbudget reductions on Utilities. Williams: All city departments identifying potential
budget reductions as a result of declining revenues; city hiring freeze so determinations being
made whether to fill positions, including Water Conservation Specialist position (decision will be
taken in March).
• 75'" Street wastewater treatment plant -prairie dog issue. Byers: Did city meet timetable on
prairie dog issue (i.e. getting utilities under-grounding work done before prairie dog denning
season)? Williams: Yes. Douglas Sullivan managing this.
• Fluoride in drinking water update: Williams: WRAB had asked for an update on this issue.
Crittenden: City is still using hydrofluorosilicic acid, used at both plants. Costs of different
product would be $Imillion, so city has stuck with liquid fluoride. Each batch analyzed (same
source in Florida as Fort Collins's - LCI). Williams: City continues to add fluoride and meet
regulations of 0.9 - 1.0 mg/Iiter in finished drinking water. Crittenden: Haven't had any
problems with it. Williams: Staff hasn't identified switch in CIP program so not moving from
liquid to powder form. Byers: Is $1 mil lion cone-time cost -incremental over what we are
spending now? Williams: Yes, it is amortized. Byers: Lead levels? Crittenden: Lead levels have
stayed the same. Byers: Reliability of supplies? Crittenden: Not an issue anymore. DeDreo: If
we didn't add fluoride, what would level in treated water be? Crittenden: 0.25 mg/liter. DeOreo:
How much does city spend on fluoridation? Crittenden: $40k m 2007, and $25k in 2008 just for
the chemicals. DeOreo: Stored liquid and where injected? Crittenden: At the end. DeOreo: No
operational problems? Crittenden: Only if there is a pump problem. DeOreo: City is no longer
thinking of moving to powder? Williams: No. DeDreo: Given the ubiquity of fluoride, does i[
make sense to add i[ [o drinking water from a public health standpoint? Has talked with the dentist
and been told that the window for needing drinking water with fluoride is between bitch and when
adult teeth come in, but seems like you would get the same effect from toothpaste. Doesn't expect
an answer tonight.
Agenda Item 5 -Discussion on Drought Planning and Response Plan.
Ellinghouse gave a presentation on the background of the city's drought policies and methodologies. The
city's "Drought Plan" was completed in February 2003 and revised with new drought triggers in 2004.
Since [hen, a water budget rate structure was implemented in January 2007 and a draft Source Water
Master Plan (SWMP) has been developed with final approval anticipated to occur in 2009. The Drought
Plan needs to be updated so that drought response strategies and public education efforts are consistent with
the new water budget rate structure methodology and to incorporate information to be developed as a result
of recommendations in the Sovrce Water Master Plan. Staff anticipates beginning the Drought Plan update
in the first half of 2009 after the Source Water Master Plan approval process is completed. A complete
copy of the Drought Plan (Volumes 1 and 2) may be found on the city's web site at:
httn'//www bouldercolorado env/index ~hpvoo[ion=com content&tukwiew&id=4472&Itemid=1974.
DeOreo then presented "Drought Planning and Response Policy Recommendations" to get WRAB to think
about eleven policy recommendations for city council, including the establishment of a "Drought Response
Task Force" to advise the city on drought matters and assist with drought education and response.
Staff is not asking WRAB for a recommendation, just updating Volume 1 with a major focus on
incorporating budgets into the Drought Response Plan. DeOreo eventually wants board action on his
policy recommendations, but not necessarily tonight.
Public Comment:
• Steve Colby: Whether some of the proposed mitigation measures in Drought Response Plan
aze more permanent or temporary? Need for a more permanent approach in water use as
DeOreo suggests. Has spent years trying to get people in rural areas of CO to use water
meters; im ressed with Boulder's a roach but aware of oli[ical constraints on rocess in
WRAB Summary
February 23, 2009
Page No. 2
Boulder- way [o get political traction for drought issue before a serious drought? Colby not
in water, but thinks the whole process needs to be simplified because so hazd to engage people
in long-term thinking once you get to council, even in Boulder. Ellinghouse: Water
Conservation Plan addresses more permanent measures -ongoing effort to create awareness
of wise water use and decrease water use over time. Conservation and Drought plans intersect
but permanent focus is about meeting council's reliability criteria and dealing with planned
periods of deliberately reducing water supply. Miller: Long-term conservation measures,
which bring down per-capita use, are partly responsible for why projected demands in build-
out are dropping, so there is mote flexibility in the system because average use is dropping
compared to what we assumed twenty years ago. Ellinghouse: Yes, and this will be reflected
in the plans. Colby: Are there considerations of much more catastrophic events -political or
physical - in Drought Plan, e.g. are there components with faster response-time?
Ellinghouse: Gets more into the idea of an emergency response plan, which was
recommended for development in the Source Water Master Plan and which staff is scheduled
to develop.
• Dan Johnson: Are there source waters being considered for drought protection other than
what we curzently have? Ellinghouse: A section in Drought Plan talks about increasing
supply through interruptible (temporary) supplies but not buying permanent water rights.
Miller: We are currently leasing water to irrigators, so we would already have some of the
interruptible rights available. Ellinghouse: Yes, 2-3,000 acre feet leased out to irrigators
every year. DeDreo: If we had to operate the system without C-BT (Colorado Big-Thompson
water) for an extended period of time, how much would Boulder be able to store in the
watershed and in Barker Reservoir, i.e. what in-basin interruptible water rights would we have
in order to maximize storage in Barker without C-BT water and how much would it cost?
Ellinghouse: Part of additional storage space bought in 2001 in Barker intended for drought
reserves and we carry this over year-to-year. DeOreo: What if multi-year drought and we
were forced to rely solely on local water rights? Ellinghouse: If an extended drought, we
would be moving toward a Stage 4 drought. Barker would gradually drop. Byers: Getting
off-track; we need [o stay big-picture.
Questions to Statf from WRAB:
Clarifications on Ellinghouse presentation: Clarification of baseline used in water use reduction (Page 7,
Volume 1, Table 1) -build-out during a normal yeaz, assuming a 26,800 acre-foot build-out; clarification of
basis for 2002 1-in-300-yeaz drought - paleohydrology, i.e. tree-ring records from early 1700s to match
severity of 2002 drought. Explanation of how numbers line up (Page 48, Table 6); outdoor targeted at
higher reduction than indoor consumption. Data on p. 38 -triggers for each stage -most likely to get
modified to help city make better calls during a drought. Confirmation that changes in temperature,
yielding changes in evaporation, are captured in agricultural demand and in water rights calls in the study.
Conformation that study distinguishes direct flow from groundwater use -incorporated in algorithm that
reflects calls.
Feedback and discussion on Ellinghouse presentation: Stream drought referencing frequencies (p. 16,
Volume -would be helpful for reader to have something on occurrence intervals earlier in document,
when discussing reliability criteria, and at every stage. Discussion of change in reliability criteria with ]0%
change in build-out demand; rationale for "safety factor" of 10%-models not perfect representations.
Discussion of proportions of Boulder Creek water versus C-BT water reflected in Figure 27, Page 44,
(Volume II). Varies from year to year; staff observing how system performs according to demand and how
often violations of reliability criteria occur; demand reduced according to the calling of the droughts based
on May 1 projections. Discussion of proportions of C-BT versus Boulder Creek water in a 1-in-1000-year
drought. Can't calculate because shares can accumulate from previous years, shares will be different if
previous years were dry, and depends on what Northern (Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District)
does to their system. Concern with making assumptions about C-BT availability. Emphasis on modeling as
a work in progress; staff tried to create flexible structure without needing major future modifications.
Feedback and discussion on DeOreo presentation: General support for study even though not all
assum lions make sense e.. not 'ust Boulder needin to think ahead in terms of drou ht emer encies
WRAB Summary
February 23, 2009
Page No. 3
because state/federal agencies would likely be helping other cities and keeping C-BT full. Comment that
water budgets already use efficiency benchmarks as reflected in Recommendations #4 and # 9. Yes, but
need to think about how to modify benchmarks and current Drought Response Plan doesn't do this.
Support from WRAB of most if not all eleven recommendations but hesitant to make determinations on
recommendations until all WRAB members present. Suggestion to defer full discussion on
recommendations to March WRAB meeting. Boulder clearly ahead of the curve if Denver asking about our
reliability criteria. Strong temptation in Boulder for temporary fixes to become long-term and require
enforcemenU"water police"; big concern with potential privacy issues. Concern with curtailmenU1948
Compact issues (curtailment allegedly unlikely in next two decades, according to attendees at recent West
Slope meeting). Need for more viewpoints -other WRAB members, public, including people impacted by
current economic situation. Support for approving these recommendations before Drought Plan updated.
Support for putting review of recommendations on March agenda, with Miller still there. DeDreo could get
CWCB (Colorado Water Conservation Boazd) drought-response expert to come to March meeting.
Local snowpack level? A little early to tell whether [here will be shortfall compared to the average, but as
of February 1, upper watershed snow course at 106%, lower snow course at 89%.
Agenda Item 6 -Update on watermain break data and analysis.
Worley gave the presentation. Staff has recently completed a water pipe replacement analysis that
considers an extensive GIS based inventory of the water distribution system pipes as well as break records
from the previous 20 years. The analysis is documented in the attached Technical Memorandum regarding
Water Main Replacement Analysis and CIP Budget Estimate.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included:
Clarifications: Explanation for no data before 1990s -all previous data manual and some of it discarded to
increase storage. Staff's definition of "pipe" from GIS database -anything between a "fitting" and a
"valve" (segment); can be any length, can also change with pipe-type. Discussion of discount rates
(discount rate plus adjustments for inflation/deflation) used for chart - 3% using 2007-dollars. Discussion
of how staff define "failure" -point-system for each pipe, points based partly on breaking. Table with 80%
confidence levels -how does it interface with table using 2007-dollars? Just a confidence discussion.
Feedback: Extent to which city keeps track of how much water lost in the system through repeated breaks?
Vazies, but doesn't happen often. Role of finances and public perception of breaks/inconvenience in
proposed policies. Suggestion that pipe breakdowns should be occurring more frequently over time (i.e.
lines should be curved, no[ straight) -probably, need more data points to refine curves. Significance of
pipe breaks on 20-year CIP (capital improvements program). Discussion of need for similar study for
wastewater pipes -none currently, but more speculative because no data. Active leak-detection surveys to
detect pinhole leaks, e.g. acoustic surveys? Too much background noise in acoustic surveys; only 5%
leakage (for unmetered water). WRAB support for study for helping people understand the system and
how it affects their water bills; study will also buttress recommendations [o council on rate increases.
Agenda Item 7 -Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings.
WRAB agreed to push back [he Water Quality Strategic Plan and IGA with Nederland on funding to
beyond the March meeting. WRAB agreed to keep the Draft W WUMP item, Update on Council Study
Session on Flood Management item, the Update on the Auxiliary Well Survey and Implementation item on
the March agenda, and [o add the Drought Response Plan item to the March agenda. Suggestion to dovetail
Drought Response Plan item with Auxiliary Wells Survey item since they are closely linked.
Because one WRAB member unable to attend March 16`h meeting, discussion of pushing back March
meeting to March 23rd. If WRAB can get all five members on March 23`d, especially for input on the
Drought Response Plan, agreement to move meeting to March 23`d.
A endaltem8-Ad'ournment
WRAB Summary
February 23, 2009
Page No. 4
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller.
Seconded by: DeOreo.
Vote: 3-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, March 16'"* - 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the 13`" Street
Conference Room unless otherwise decided b staff and the boazd. *Date ahead sub'ect to than e.
These aze summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records or on the
WRAB web site.
Minutes approved by: ~ ~2~ ,/)1~6+w. $ r,1//-S
Date_ ~-Z~- 04 dpi ~i((~
~_d ~pEo,<-~)
WRAB Summary
February 23, 2009
Page No. 5