HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - March 23, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: March 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, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan loft
STAFF - Ned Williams; Carol Ellinglsouse; Bob Harberg; Kim Hutton, Joanna Crean; Bret Linenfelser;
1,,1iche11e Wind. Russ Sands. Douglas Sullivan. Suzanne Lieberman - Secrelarv.
%ATIAT TYPE OF ME ETINC: (BOLD ONL1 [REGULAR[ [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL
Agenda Item I -Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
•
Agenda Item 2 - Meeting Minutes - February 23, 2009.
Motion: Byers - Move to approve February 23, 2009 minutes as amended.
Seconded: Miller
Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed [lots and DiNatale abstained because they were not present at
the February 23`d meeting.]
Byers: Request for internal deadline of Friday before the meeting for WRAB members to receive final
draft version of minutes for that meeting.
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment.
Kirk Cunningham: [Member, Sierra Club, Indian Peaks chapter] Sierra Club has a water sampling
program; performed water sampling on baseline conditions for reconstruction project on Goose Creek.
Although they though have grant funds for this sampling project, very useful to have access to analytical
work completed by Boulder's Wastewater Treatment Plant laboratory. Byers: Data available for public?
Cunningham: Yes. Byers: Request to post data to WRAB website.
Agenda Item 4
Matters from Board -
• WRAB Retreat/brainstorming session. DiNatale: Would be good to revisit the retreat ideas
from three years ago at Miller's office for some institutional memory for existing and newer
members. DeOreo: Should WRAB have another retreat or revisiting notes? DiNatale: Just
getting notes and assessing whether there is a need for a future retreat.
• Valmont Butte remediation costs. Byers: Update on Valmont Butte remediation costs in terms
of break-down by staff department? Williams: [Distributes summary of remediation activities].
Items total $671,000 with Utilities having contributed $278,000. Utilities proceeding under 40%
and 60% General Fund cost-sharing, depending on items. Byers: So no funding from Open Space
or "fire" entity? Williams: "Fire" is a General Fund item-, nothing from Open Space. Byers: Was
Open Space ever asked to contribute? Williams: Yes, but since they are managing a part of the
site not associated with the contamination or prairie dogs and since land not intended to be sold if
that is the final decision, not participating. Byers: And land has never been legally subdivided?
Williams: No, it has not been subdivided.
• Boulder Feeder Canal Trail. Byers: County is ramping up again on the Boulder Feeder Canal
("BFC") Trail; does staff have any updates in terms of Utilities as a source of funding for this or
will county use its recent tax funding? Williams: County is taking the lead and intends to fund
entire trail construction, developing alignment alternatives; hopes to vet project through public
process this summer from which preferred alignment will be selected (or alignment selection
might happen before public process and then they will ask for public feedback). The county will
also be completing all environmental analyses before making a proposal presentation to Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (`Northern"). Utilities, Transportation, Parks & Recreation,
and Open Space all involved in the process. Carl Castillo, Legislative Liaison, City Manager's
Office, coordinating the city's involvement with the county. Byers: Will alignment alternatives
WRAB SummaFv
March 23,201)U
Pagc No. 1
extend into city part of BFC or just into unincorporated county? Williams: County is looking at
alternatives that might be on city-owned property that might be adjacent to BFC. Wind: Met with
county project manager; county had asked city Open Space and other city departments for
preferred alignments for that first mile within city limits; city had initially proposed looking at
using rights-of-ways of canals. Byers: Where else are the city properties north of the first mile?
Wind: At Dodd Open Space property, not contiguous to the first mile - further north. Byers:
Current county project manager for this? Wind: Julie McCarthy- in transportation. DiNatale:
Any other side discussion with Northern about putting trail in Northern's right-of-way? Williams:
County's intent to locate the trail as much as possible .in Northem's corridor but where adjacent to
city-owned Open Space, possibly a realignment onto city open space; where a need to further
deviate from Northern Corridor, possible private property approval Or acquisition. DiNatale: But
generally they're trying to put the trail in Northern's right-of-way? Williams: Yes, or just adjacent
to it if the property is publicly owned. Wind: County met with Northern for preferences - if the
trail has to by in its right-of-way, Northern's first preference would be public land; its second
preference would be the opposite side of their maintenance road; their third preference would be
the same side of their maintenance road, off-road. DiNatale: Any other rationale for not putting
the trail on the maintenance road? Wind: The main reason is because Northern uses that road to
access the BFC. DiNatale: Request for informal status update, no rush, on feeder canal bypasses.
Byers: Agreed; not sure they've been on the agenda in awhile.
• Water Wise utility bill flyer. DeOreo: Who designed the flyer and who is managing the
program? Linenfelser: Not sure who initially designed flyer, but program funded partly by city
Water Conservation Office; Center for ReSource Conservation ("CRC") has been coordinating
with staff on it. Alot of information and services are CRC services funded by the city, Slow the
Flow, e.g. DeOreo: Should be including water budgets in the program as a management tool to
educate people; they should mention that people can obtain water meter monitors to track use
against budget. Linenfelser: Their primary focus is to promote CRC activities, e.g. landscape
seminars. DeOreo: But city could have included a discussion of water budgets in their Water Wise
landscape seminars; suggestion to include such a discussion in the future. DiNatale: Or include
f such information in a second flyer this year if there is one. Byers: Costs for such color, double-
sided print-outs? Best use of postage versus posting things online? Linenfelser: Doesn't know
costs off-hand. Williams: One insert like this by itself does not add postage; two or three would.
DeOreo: City offers rebates for a host of water-wise tools, e.g. drip irrigation, dual flush toilets,
but charges people for meter monitors, which doesn't make sense; city should be giving the meters
away, not charging for them. Miller: If there is an electronic version, is it posted on the city's
website as a PDF? Williams: Will check. Miller: If flyer is available as a PDF, we could easily
insert a paragraph about water budgets.
• Nexus of energy and water issues at federal level. Lott: Has been reading a lot about this nexus
and feels WRAB should encourage more of this kind of analysis, like the Peer Review
incorporated a recommendation for an energy audit a few months ago.
• CU discharge issues. Lott: Concern with recent anti-freeze discharge in Boulder Creek at CU not
having been reported quickly; not the first time discharges at CU haven't been reported quickly.
What is system of reporting and responding to discharges at CU? Williams: This incident was
reported and responded to that same evening; city responded through the fire department. lott: Is
WRAB concerned about CU discharges? Byers: Might come up in the waste water discussion
item later in the agenda because of permit issues. Linenfelser: CU has a stormwater permit. There
is at least one city stormwater outfall on the CU campus. Yes, there have been a number of recent
discharges, but CU has been responsive; has just been difficult to identify source, as with the
incident lott mentions. Williams: The other discharge at CU was the result of cleaning out
irrigation ponds after winter; some decay caused stagnant water to release into overflow ditches
into Boulder Creek DeOreo: Don't these discharge issues relate to the Water Quality Strategic
Plan ("WQSP") rather than the Waste Water Utility Master Plan? Linenfelser: Yes, WQSP
includes goals for point source and non-point source discharges; city also involved with CU E-coli
TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) on that stretch of Boulder Creek because of potential for
cross-connections. City has met with CU in the past, trying to set up another meeting soon for
developing this TMDL this year. lott: When irrigation discharge results, is it a point source or
non-point source issue since it's coming from a pond? Linenfelser: If coming out of stormwater
outfall, it is a discharge so regulated by CU's stormwater permit, but stormwater permits are fairly
loose and rescriptive. City is trying CO get firmer numeric limits on these. DiNatale: There used
WRAB Summary
March 23, 2009
Page No. 2
to be certain leeway with iniption releases. DeOrco: Are there clear lines of communication at '
CU in terms of response, especially for highly toxic discharges? Linenfelser: Yes, the fire
department is the first responder, contacts the Water Quality group. The problem is that the
discharge Lott refers to happened on a Friday evening so response went into the weekend, but they
did respond Friday evening.
• NIST plutonium incident. Byers: Update? Williams: Most of clean-up has occurred, but not
entirely yet; site still not containment-free. N1ST staff continuing to wort: with NRC to provide
updates, involve city in their compliance schedule. Byers: Will NISI pay the city for this? Is city
planning to ask? Linenfelser: Yes, there is a contract for reimbursement for the scope of work,
but have not yet requested the reimbursement cost from NISI.
• Water Conservation Specialist position. Miller: Update? Williams: City is not filling the
position right now. All vacant positions are being submitted to the City Manager's office for
review and approval before being aliowed to post. Water Conservation Specialist position initially
submitted and not approved, and staff has resubmitted the request for reconsideration later this
month. lott: budgetary reasons for denial? Williams: Yes.
i
WRAB and staff then recognized Bart Miller with an honorary plaque for his service on the board and as
the outgoing WRAB member.
Matters from Staff-
• Source Water Master Plan. Williams: Tentatively scheduled for review by council April 7.
• Plant Investment Fees. Williams: PIFs approved by council on March 3; PIFs will go into effect
soon. A three-year phase-in for water and waste water PIFs and a five-year phase-in for
stormwater PiFs.
• Council study session on floodplain management. Williams: Study session is April 28. Bob
Harberg will review this agenda item later in the meeting- Water rights and legislation are also
tentatively scheduled for the study session. WRAB members - current and future - are invited to
attend. lott: Rationale for water rights and legislation being on the agenda? Williams: An update;
council had hoped to have hearing earlier in the legislative process but it didn't happen. Byers:
Federal water issues, too? Will Carl Castillo be at the study session? Williams: No, Castillo will
not be here April 28.
Agenda Item 5 - Informational Item - Follow-up Information on Auxiliary Water Well, Survey.
Wind gave the presentation. At the November 2008 WRAB meeting, Drinking Water Program Staff
presented an informational item on an Auxiliary Water Well Survey (Survey) conducted to determine the
potential risk for cross contamination to the city distribution system as part of the city's Backflow
Prevention Program. This informational item will be a verbal update on: 1) how the Survey information
will be part of the backflow prevention program and 2) responses to primary WRAB questions raised in at
the November 2008 meeting.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB discussion and feedback included: Number of wells identified (i.e. versus those not identified via
voluntary survey responses) - about 80%. Back-flow preventers on irrigation systems fed from domestic
wells? Technically required by code - city not initially focusing on residential users, but focusing on
commercial, and doing more educational work. Backflow preventers on community gardens facilities'
irrigation systems? A possibility. Importance of emphasizing in educational materials that city is not
requiring well owners to surrender their water rights. Concern with equity issues on various classes of
water rights owners (e.g. groundwater vs. direct flow rights users). Whether there is any cross-
contamination risk with surface water sources? Questions on total acreage served by exempt wells and
whether these data are statistically significant in overall water planning, particularly because these data feed
into drought response issues, and particularly in terms of health, safety, and welfare. Depending on
capacity, desire to see more functions on database for integrating this kind of data. WRAB support for
survey idea for water quality and overall resource planning. Interest in correlating data points already
received with existing pen-nits from the State Engineer's Office, especially for commercial and multi-unit
facilities. Next steps include focusing on commercial/industrial use, coordinating with state, and longer-
term prioritization.
WRAB Summa p
March 23, 2009
Fa<_>e No 3
Agenda Item 6 -Discussion and Recommendations on Drought Planning and Response Policies.
Crean gave the presentation. At the Feb. 17, 2009 WRAB meeting staff and WRAB members discussed the
Drought Response Plan ("DRP") update process. Staff anticipates beginning the DRP update in the first
half of 2009 after the Source Water Master Plan approval process is completed. At the Feb. 17 meeting,
WRAB member Bill DeOreo provided information on his recommendations regarding eleven (11) drought
policies. WRAB decided to consider possible recommendations regarding council and/or city manager
adoption of these drought policies at the March meeting, when a full WRAB board would be present.
On March 10, 2009 city staff (Joanna Crean, Bret Linenfelser, Carol Ellinghouse and Ned Williams) and
Lee Rozaklis (AMEC Consultants) met with Bill DeOreo to discuss each of the eleven policy issues and
provide an update on existing council-adopted policies, existing city ordinances, and existing and proposed
city work efforts, as reflected in Attachment A.
Public Comment: Henry Adamski: 2002 was a dry year, thin snowpack; city raised water rates 9% and
never decreased them; everyone cut back. Although snowpacks have been well above historical averages
in most subsequent years, water rates up. Also, water budgets don't seem fair, seem like perpetual
rationing. If city didn't have enough water for its residents in 2002, how can it justify development at
Dakota Ridge subdivision, build-out on Broadway, at the Peloton, 47`h and Jay, etc.? Not fair to ask public
to conserve during drought and impose economic penalties but not have city conserve on its building
permits. Ellinghouse: Boulder is a semi-arid community with variable water supply from year-to-year.
Council adopted "reliability criteria" in 1989, recognizing that the city can't provide all water for all users
in all year types, so it established criteria for uses depending on the severity of the drought. City thinks it
has enough water rights to meet city's needs at build-out based on projections in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (`BVCP") up to the level of the reliability criteria. City must anticipate droughts, cut
back deliveries; but in most years, city will be able to provide a Rill water supply for all uses, even at build-
out. 2002 system performed better than expected. lott: 9% rate increase related to drought surcharge or
normal increase in utilities? Adamski: City had meetings; why wasn't there better planning? Williams:
The city may have had a general 9% rate increase because it initiated surcharges mid-year, but would have
to go back and check. DeOreo: Recalls fair way of reducing water use through irrigation restrictions;
doesn't recall 9% rate increase. But recalls landscaping community asking how much city wanted them to
use, so users were given flexibility. Miller: Drought surcharge issues and rate adjustments could have
definitely led to higher bills in 2002. Ellinghouse: Recalls surcharges applied to Blocks 3 and 4, but will
check. Miller: Suggestion to take Adamski's comments into consideration in the motion for this agenda
item. Adamski: What about city's reason for not conserving on building permits? DeOreo: Same issue as
for rate increases: whether the city has adequate water to satisfy build-out demand? If growth were to occur
at a rate where city would start violating reliability criteria, city would have to curtail growth or increase
supply. Williams/Ellinghouse: Or change policies. Adamski: Only response is to raise rates? lott:
Infrastructure needing to be replaced is probably one reason for the need for rate increases. Do Planning
Board and staff look at water supply when considering issuing permits? Miller: They have to now - new
2008 law.
WRAB Discussion included: Clarifications: Whether a free-standing group in terms of a "Drought Task
Force" already exists and who would comprise that group for the DRP; suggestion that group should focus
on Adamski's concerns. Questions on date for drought determination; perception that "drought resiliency"
refers to conservation rather than city's ability to carry water over from year-to-year. Reconciling the fact
that DeOreo's plan is more long-term focused whereas DRP is more short-term focused.
Feedback and discussion: Concern about ability to implement DRP without a Water Conservation
Specialist and "Plan B" for filling that position's responsibilities. Questions on conservation measures
being undertaken for specific households; use of drought surcharges and whether they would be used
similarly as in 2002; suggestion of surcharges as the focus of a future WRAB meeting; caution not to
punish people who are already conserving, particularly those using Best Available Technology; allowances
for food gardens versus landscaping applications. Concern that WRAB look at 10 points and decide how to
handle them prior to revising DRP. Whether city should consult Highlands Ranch and Irvine Ranch (CA)
drought. Idea of tackling a few of each of the 10 recommendations per WRAB meeting; discussion about
whether to have WRAB address 10 recommendations prior to revising DRP. Reminder of focus of
reliability criteria on non-essential uses; assumptions in water supply in terms of direct flow. Suggestion to
rename "waste water ordinance." Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") support for DeOreo's
policy reconunendations and involvement in its own state drought plan; CWCB willim-mess to support city
WRAB Summary
March 23, 2009
Page No. 4
of Boulder however possible.
Motion #1 (DeOreo): Whereas the Water Resources Advisory Board has been presented with numerous
studies and reports outlining the increased risk of drought to Boulder's water supply, and are convinced that
attention should be given to updating the City's 2003 Drought Response Plan we make the following
recommendations to the City Manager and City Council:
Before any work is started on the update to the Drought Response Plan that a joint study session be held
with Council and WRAB to discuss how the following 10 questions should be answered by the update
Drought Response Plan.
1. How should the Drought Response Plan become more pro-active, and what steps should be
included to insure that drought conditions are recognized as early as possible and that the lead time
for implementation is kept to a minimum?
How should the public be involved in the drought planning and response, and should a separate
panel be established to assist with drought response?
3. How should the water budget rate structure be used to manage drought response?
4. How should the financial stability of the water utility be maintained when demands are
suppressed, and how should rates be used as an enforcement tool?
5. How can all customers share shortages in an equitable manner?
6. How should long term water conservation measures be used to increase the resilience of the
system to drought?
7. Given the increased uncertainties caused by climate change, extended historical drought
information, increased demands on the rivers and changes to operation policies, what are the
design droughts that correspond to the 20, 100 and 1000 year return intervals specified by the
reliability criteria?
8. How should water budgets be reduced in times of drought in a manner that does not punish
customers how have already reduced their demands through conservation, and which encourages
early adoption of conservation measures by all customer categories?
9. How should be City best co-ordinate its drought responses other governmental agencies?
J 0. How can the City Code be used to re-enforce the principles of water use efficiency and waste
prevention, and should a specific water waste ordinance be adopted?
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 4-1 against, Motion failed.
Discussion of Motion #1: Suggestion for a joint staff/WRAB discussion prior to involving council and/or
idea of having internal WRAB study session; value in revising DRP to include water budgets; including
CWCB recormendations and findings; need for statistical probabilities to form proper policies; getting
information on predictive events earlier on; concern that WRAB have a seat at the "drought-planning table"
on an ongoing basis.
Motion 42 (DeOreo): Move to accelerate the rate at which the existing water meters are replaced and that
water meter monitors should be given to all customers when there meters are upgraded.
Seconded: None, so Motion failed.
Discussion of Motion #2: Idea for special WRAB study session; recommendations can be made to council
after study session; expediting DRP with water budgets so that city will be ready for drought, for discussion
at May or June WRAB meeting.
Motion #3 (DeOreo): Move that the water budgets for the months of April, May and June be increased
when the City's direct flow water rights are in priority, when reservoirs are spilling and when there is a soil
moisture deficit in town.
Seconded: Byers
Vote: 3-2 against, Motion failed
Agenda Item 7 - Update on the Draft Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP).
Sullivan gave the presentation. The Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) is an overarching
document intended to resent key issues, programs, roiects. and associated budgets for the city's
WRAB Summary
March 23, 2009
Page No. 5
wastewater utility, including the collection system, wastewater treatment plant, and associated water quality
and support programs. The W WC1MP is supported by three primary planning documents for the
Wastewater Utility: Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WWCSMP), Wastewater Treatment Plant
Master Plan (WWTPMP), and the Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP).
The mission of the Utilities Division is to provide quality water services, as desired by the community, in a
manner which emphasizes efficient management of fiscal and natural resources, and protects human and
environmental health. In vencral, the planning process for the Wastewater Utility focuses on identifying
opportunities that continue the high level of service provided to its customers and evaluating the associated
cost of the opportunities. The opportunities and recommendations resulting from the planning process take
the form of capital construction projects, system rehabilitation and repair projects, preparing systems and
operational processes that anticipate future regulations, and evaluating staffing needs. Wastewater and
water quality planning projects, such as the W WTPMP, WWCSMP, and WQSP, are the primary tools that
provide the detailed analysis resulting in the opportunities and recommendations contained within the
W WUMP.
A series of guiding principles, policies and implementation measures were used to define the planning
process for the Utility. The guiding principles for the WWUMP area based on Boulder's planning
approach to community sustainability through evaluating social, environmental, and economic impacts
associated with various programs and projects within the city. Specifically, the three guiding principles for
the W WUMP are:
• Protect Public Health and Safety
• Protect Boulder's Natural Resources and the Environment
• Maximize the use of the Wastewater Utility's Funds
in general, the policies that support the guiding principles noted above are defined by the Boulder Revised
Code (B.R.C.) and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The WWTPMP, WWCSMP and the
WQSP provide the implementation measures by defining planning elements, requirements,
recommendations, and, where applicable, identify capital improvement projects.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB discussion and feedback included: Ranking of Boulder on the ARRA list; potential for funding
Nederland's waste water project under ARRA; whether all major projects have already been identified,
discussion of city being city well-positioned for treatment needs in terms of permits; expanding lab
facilities and contracting out services. Suggestion to include hypothetical numbers and contracting
alternative, cost-effectiveness. Request for more detail on some of the larger dollar figures. Questions on
the bond market and its impact for this project. Plan is for Sullivan to return on the WWUMP in April.
Clarifications: How this relates to the plan WRAB looked at last year; relationship between CIP and fund
financials.
Agenda item 8 -Informational Item - Flood Management and Mitigation Program Item for April
28`h City Council Study Session.
Harberg gave the presentation. Staff isaproviding an update on the Flood Management and Mitigation
Program in preparation for the April 28'' City Council Study Session. The purpose of the study session is
to present information and discuss issues raised at the November 10, 2008 public hearing on the Fourmile
Canyon and Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Plan. The agenda document (Attachment A) addresses
issues related to the city's property acquisition and flood mitigation program to provide more perspective
for council in considering whether to approve the staff recommendations on the Fourmile Canyon and
Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Plan.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB discussion and feedback included: Suggestion to charge each basin like for stormwater PIFs,
otherwise hypocritical; showing council that this plan isn't really inconsistent with what city has spent
elsewhere and everyone benefits; suggestion to present cost information, in 2008 dollars, that was spent on
Goose Creek and Bear Creek. Suggestion that containment unattractive for some people because they are
willing to take a higher flood risk than the city. Sq~ estion to convey to council benefits in cost-benefit
WRAB Summary
March 23, 2009
Pagc No. 6
anatysis slide in terms of ecolo-ical benetits
Clarifications: Whether private expenses were being accounted for in terms of flood-proofing for
properties in the high-hazard zone; whether analysis ever done for removing all obstacles in terms of
floodplain mapping for Fourmile Creek; Council's real concerns: reconciling non-containment approach to
Boulder Creek versus containment approach to Wonderland Creek and Fourmile Creek; implications for
funding $33 million for Fourmile/Wonderland Creels and what the consequence would be for funding the
rest of the flood/stormwater projects needed in the city; problem of achieving overall funding. Question on
reason for number of structures in high-hazard zone increasing in certain floodplains; question about the
Transit Village project in the Goose Creek floodplain.
Agenda item 9 - future schedule
No changes to items scheduled for April 20 meeting; idea of scheduling additional meetings and study
session for drought response, but nothing set.
Agenda Item 10 - Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller.
Seconded by: DeOreo.
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 11:25 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, April 20 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the 13'' Street Conference
Room, unless otherwise decided by staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records or on the
VATRAB web site.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
WRAB Summary
March 23, 2009
Page No. 7