Water Board Meeting – May 2023

Video Description:
Water Board Meeting – May 2023

Read along below:

Unknown Speaker 0:01
Okay, your clock already door. Roll call. Yes, that will like your badger Lang. Name Davis, your Tom jester is not there yet can use it your salary, your voting, or Jason Elkins here. There’s your McIntyre is here and Councilmember Martin here. Approval of previous month’s minutes. Any questions or concerns about the meeting? Move to approve. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right.

Speaker 1 0:53
The flow this morning it was was 3.7. CFS storage average. 250 CFS for the state recall on the same train is for those reservoir. And that’s an Mg 10 Call currently, there is no fall in the South Park. So it’s pretty rare to drop by sidewalk is currently at validation of 6386 which is approximately 13,000 acres down taker fee simple

Unknown Speaker 1:37
your as work as

Speaker 1 1:38
an elevation of 23.8 or 9900 9900. Approximately. So, as of May 1 or district reservoirs are 66% of that

Speaker 2 1:59
is a curiosity question and all the rains that have any negative impact on as long

Unknown Speaker 2:05
as the average or as in

Unknown Speaker 2:09
start with damage.

Unknown Speaker 2:12

Unknown Speaker 2:13
just the small town small stuff. And we have experienced the loss

Unknown Speaker 2:26
All right. All right.

Speaker 3 2:36
Yeah, I’d like to introduce China Conan is kind of grieving with the same grain left and Water Conservancy District area, give us a presentation on the recently applied for protocol IC six funding. Hopefully it’ll bring some money into the basin for water resources, projects throughout the bases.

Unknown Speaker 3:03
Let’s get started again.

Speaker 4 3:06
So as Ken said, my name is Sean Cronin. I’m the Executive Director of Cinderella Tanwar Conservancy District and it’s good to be back to be in person. It’s been a few years since I’ve been here. One of the last times I was here was talking to you about the possibility of the St. Bernard lefthand Water Conservancy District going on the ballot, we ended up doing that in November of 20. What led to that discussion of going on the ballot was the completion of a stream management plan as well as coming out of the flood. And just looking at the future of water development, water supplies, and the needs around the valley with regards to stream restoration and other things that would maximize water supplies. And what we heard from the community is, it would be great if it was a source of funding to be able to do all the things that we want to do. And so that led to the st. Marin left hand Water Conservancy District saying, hey voters, would you be interested in increasing your property taxes in order to generate revenue to focus on these kinds of water projects and the kinds of water projects you’re about to hear and Scott’s presentation on the PIO 566. But as I was out in the community, asking them to raise their property taxes, I said, I think I can take the dollar that you would give us and I think I could perhaps get another dollar from the Colorado Water Conservation Board the state of Colorado and some other grants. Most of those grants require some kind of match. So in order for us to be competitive with other parts of the state, we need some local source of funding. So I think I could have some return on the investment. Collectively, it’s about three to $4 million a year that come in through this new property tax. There was a 10 year sunset associated with that. So maybe 2030. So round numbers 30 to $40 million, that would be available locally, to the same grand left hand Water Conservancy District to work with our partners This can’t the water projects that we’re talking about can’t be done without collaboration and can’t be done without working together and certainly can’t be done without leveraging each of our dollars together collectively. When I told them, I thought I could maybe get $1 for dollar, what Scott’s about present to you is we’ve made a $240 million ask to the federal government, I in my wildest dreams didn’t envision that we would take 30 to 40 million and turn it into 240 million. But there is a possibility we could do that. And you get about, excuse me about to hear about the kinds of projects that we’re talking about. The reason I didn’t envision a 240 million is because we didn’t envision a pandemic. And we didn’t envision the federal government finding another printing press to print out more money to put out for infrastructure and water related projects. And that’s where this money is just about $600 million nationwide, we asked for just about half of it just to come here locally, that shows you the demand and the nature of what we’re trying to accomplish here locally. So I want to thank you for inviting us in to share with you an update on this. There’s lots of other things that we’re working on with that new tax funding and would welcome the opportunity to come back and talk to you about other projects that we’re working on that I think you’ll have interest in. But we’re really excited about this opportunity because it really has some great opportunities for long been in Longmont in Longmont tangentially as as the region as we think about water development and water sharing opportunities. So Scott, thank you.

Speaker 5 6:39
So I’ll give some background and field 566 program and then jump into some of the specific projects that we that Lamont has requested being included in our overall request to the NRCS. So this program is was funded or it began founded rather in the 40s through the National Resource Conservation Service, as Public Law 8385 60 safer as pl 566 was created primarily for. It’s called the watershed program. So there’s a watershed of focus to it, but one of the main drivers was flood protection. And so the key components to this are small reservoir constructions for flood prevention. There are several requirements to the programming have a local sponsor, and in the case of our request, we’re asking as that local sponsor, there are several authorized uses. I’ll show those on the next slide. So it has to be fit one of those uses, there are there’s an agricultural or rural community benefit to it. So it can be focused in any area of receives these funds can be just a city there, they want there to be some kind of rural component to it with the the geographic area that we are requesting funds for we were confident that that box is checked as well. And then as part of the as part of the process, you have to get a develop a watershed plan and also go through either an EA or EIS permitting process, and that is to give local inputs and to allow a mechanism for locally but to be filtered into the federal permitting process. So any project that’s included that receives pl 566 funding has to go through an EA process at a minimum, potentially in the IRS. This is a list of the different purposes that your projects that any projects that are part of the program can go towards. So you can see there’s a wide range of projects, flood prevention is a key one of those, but there are watershed protection. There’s fish and wildlife benefits. There’s municipal and industrial water, so a variety of different purposes. There are some limitations, the structure limitation. So there’s a volumetric limit. And one of the key reasons for that is a time in this program creation. You can if you know go back and water management development history, the Army Corps of Engineers in the Bureau of Reclamation, we’re also developing a bunch of reservoirs. So these limits is acre foot limit, really separate this program as focused on smaller dam so it wouldn’t be competing with other federal programs that are we’re building larger dams. This is something to keep in mind. We’ll be talking about a potential union reservoir expansion. And this, that 25,000 acre foot capacity living could come into play as a consideration into a potential human reservoir experiencing this threshold for the environmental impact statement. So most projects go through an EA process and environmental assessments on All projects are either have a high dollar amount or a high storage amount they go through, they’re required to go through an environmental impact statement, which is a more rigorous permitting federal federal permitting process. In a way, I’m sure many of you are aware of the differences between those two, if not, just raise your hand and ask at any point, those questions. There are three phases to this process. And each of these are funded separately. The first phase is the feasibility phase, or the tougher the project investigation and feasibility report. This is the phase that we are in with our projects right now. Once projects are approved for feasibility, and shown that they’re a good fit for the program, then they can go into that watershed planning and permitting phase. And then the design and construction phase, the NRCS covers 100% of the costs for phase one for this pepper analysis. They typically will allocate $50,000 for a given feasibility study on a group of projects, because our geography is and the number of products that we have a very large, we actually have gotten a little bit more money than that, and I’ll talk about that in a little bit. For phase two, the NRCS, again, covers all of the costs for that phase. And if you come out of that phase with a plan that is more or less than 30% design and most of the projects for within your given watershed. And you will also come out with either again, that environmental assessment or the environmental impact statement. And then you’re ready to go into Phase Three NRCS will cover 100% of design costs. And then for construction costs, it depends on the project purpose, and those different percentages are shown here. One key thing to note, sponsor maps and local match aren’t required until this construction phase. So the NRCS covers up a percent of the costs through design. When you’re ready to begin construction, that’s when the local match starts kicking in. And for many of these purposes, NRCS will cover 25% of the match for municipal and water management, as well as some wildlife that NRCS will cover 50% of the match. And then local non federal dollars are required for the other end. Excuse me, the other portion of that match. As far as timeline goes, that feasibility phase is anywhere between a year to year and a half the watershed and permitting phase can be two years if it’s if you need to go through the EIS process, that’s likely going to be a longer process, you have if you guys are familiar with federal permitting processes there, the NRCS in this case will be the lead federal entity and it is in their interest to move that process along as quickly as possible. So you can have that the NRCS claims that they are able to move through and navigate the permitting process more quickly than might occur otherwise. So that’s a potential benefit to the program. There are a lot of folks who hear that and still have questions. So we are we’re certainly curious to see how quickly we can move through, especially in EAS with a water project with various water projects in

Unknown Speaker 13:34

Speaker 5 13:36
And then finally, in the designing construction, once funding is approved for that you have eight years to spend that funding essentially, if you need an extension can be available. But there’s an eight year limit before you need to jump through additional hoops to get that money. This is a figure that shows a little bit more detail than that the main point here is within a given phase, there are times when it’s in the local sponsors, it’s there things that we are working on or consultants are working on. And then there’s also good chunks of time that the decision making or the the process is in the hands of the NRCS where they are working on approving funding, and they are working on reviewing results. And so there is just kind of built in that time to this process. So step time, there’s certain like bursts of staff time that will be required throughout this process. But there will also be large chunks of time that we’re just kind of waiting on the NRCS to give us some feedback. And that continues through construction as well. For the request that we have made, this is the $240 million that Shawn was referring to. So there are 37 different projects throughout the watershed and this is the st Brandon left hand watershed. So all the way from like Long’s peak out to almost pattonville where this ingredient joins the Platte River tune within our district boundaries. We have a number of partners in the city being one on one. So we’re also working with our county watershed senator, leptin, water district. And then some of this companies throughout the basin, Parks and Wildlife also has a project settlers interests. And then we have covered almost all of the different purposes, projects that represents at least one of all the different purposes in the watershed program, with the bulk of those being ag infrastructure. And then we have some question on exactly how the NRCS plans to characterize some of our projects if they’re municipal and industrial or Ag Water. So geographically, again, that red line is are the same gray left and Water Conservancy District boundaries. So again, most pick up here Continental Divide, and then out to the Platte River on an East so well beyond 25. We use different groupings are an effort to have those 37 different projects to split them up in a way that we can evaluate them in smaller chunks to get us under that EAA threshold, that $25 million threshold to expedite the permitting process. To make sure that we can, instead of leaving in environmental impact second ontological project that NRCS is allowing us to break them into smaller groups that can go through a less stringent environmental assessment or a less complicated environmental assessment or a process. Most of the city with long runs projects are in this group for also we’re going to map

Unknown Speaker 16:53
in a bit.

Speaker 5 16:56
Sorry. I’ll show you a map in just a bit that shows long on specific projects. This is a general breakdown between the different purposes and how that funding is distributed. Again, there’s a little bit of question there might be some of these projects that can be pacified as flood prevention projects, which receive a higher match ratio from the NRCS. But we’re not 100% sure about that yet. So for our projects, as you saw, we’ve got these broken into five different groups. Group one was is a little bit further in the process than groups two through five group one is the infer is expected to be completed kind of any day now. So we’ll get that feasibility report back from the consultant that the NRCS has hired to do that work. Groups two through five, we just recently heard that they’ve been approved for funding for feasibility phase. So a total of $200,000. In the feasibility study, funding has been allocated for all of our projects. So you know, at a minimum, if none of these projects are approved for future funding, we’ve got 200,000 for the NRCS to do a high level of feasibility analysis. But we’re really hopeful and excited about moving these projects through the process. And we’re pretty confident that many of them will be funded all the way through at least design and then we’ll see what funding is available from the NRCS to allocate towards construction at that time. This is a map that shows the long run projects scattered throughout mostly the Longmont area with a few kind of up in the lions area as well. And I’ll go through these each individually at a pretty high level. Feel free to stop me if you have questions. So for the Lions aversion structure, this would involve a combination of a fish passage, so replacing the existing diversion structure with the more fish passage friendly and doing some stream restoration in the local area and is expected to cost around $10 million with the matches shown there. So that was on the nursing brain will be down in the south safe brain this is the gap reef restoration area. So if you imagine just west of the town of lions, there’s a section of creek there that didn’t receive a lot of attention after the 2015 flooding So there’s several weeks wide restoration that needs to happen as well as some lung infrastructure that we would potentially consider doing that this passage replacement on as well or or redesign on as well the Beckwith diversion structure so right down by Golden ponds, another diversion dam across the river that would be either retrofitted or just either retrofitted or replaced for this passive benefit. Thanks, guys

Speaker 5 20:16
and then charge you for that water. Yeah, I’ll drop my my quarters for the resiliency breeding project. I’m sure you guys know his project better than I do. But there’s a portion of the project that begins is a proxy anyway, I believe, and then upstream from there to airport road that didn’t receive FEMA funding or wasn’t able to be completed within the current phases of the resiliency brain. And so the city asked to include this project as one of the possible Pio 566 projects. And this one might have it does have a pretty strong flood conveyance positive component to it. So with that, there was some consideration that this might fit into the flood prevention or flood mitigation, cost sharing benefit, so we would potentially have a higher NRCS match on this project. The bonus is diversion replacement. This is right by the new Costco. The bonus ditch diversion from the left hand Creek is a fish passage barrier. And there’s also a number of ways that either removing or re configuring that diversion could have benefits on the creek and also could tie into some other plans that the city has in that area. And this is one of the larger projects that has included the union reservoir pump back pipeline. This you guys probably are familiar, I’m sure involves pumping and building a pipeline from Union up to Ken Thompson, in connecting with several ditches in the area and allows for greater water delivery efficiency throughout the system. Then the union reservoir expansion. As I mentioned, this the is that 86 or 88 Union reservoir expansion study identified I think 20.5 elevation of 20.5 feet as the largest potential expansion which would be associated with 32,000, give or take acre feet of storage. So if this project is to be included in the DOL 566 request, we would need to have conversations with the city and staff about going with a lower expansion. I think that 15 foot expansion was right was just below that 25,000 acre foot total reservoir cap. So that could be a potential avenue to pursue. There’s

Unknown Speaker 23:09
the expansion for say, construction work, specifically done. What’s involved constructionwise.

Unknown Speaker 23:24
In raising the dam, Kevin, or I’ll defer to your staff to

Speaker 3 23:31
the primary part of that would be construction of a dam on the south side of the reservoir, there’s actually a small dam that would be raising that dam, southwest side of the reservoir would be placed in the outlet works because they’re under 20 years old now. So they need to replace anyway. And then the inlet channel, we would have to put a box cover all the way from the reservoir up to one

Unknown Speaker 24:05
so that you would need the container pressurized.

Speaker 3 24:11
Most of the property we already own one or two parcels for the most part, and part of a lot of property. So it’s really primarily a dam on the south side of the pipeline. And the PL 566

Speaker 5 24:32
program does have like a recreation component to it as well so could potentially cover not only unfortunately the actual expense products but the recreational features and other things to be included. There’s

Unknown Speaker 24:49
overall request.

Speaker 5 24:54
So yeah, those are all of the requests. This is is the estimate of what the various costs and match might be. This, these costs are sort of the Union comeback, as well as union expansion, as shown as kind of conservatively to fall into this category. If the if there’s more than 50% AG supply involved with those, we could potentially consider them as add water supply projects, which are in a 75% match from the NRCS 1% match. And also the resiliency and grain might be able to qualify as a flood prevention would also get a higher NRCS match potentially. So there’s a lower end estimate of what the NRCS would cover. And I’m gonna hand it back to Sean, that’s the kind of overview of the projects and so on, we’ll talk through just a few less fists.

Speaker 4 25:57
Thank you, Scott. So as I mentioned earlier, when talking to the community about the possibility of taking the three to $4 million annually, 3040, over 10 years match that didn’t expect the federal government to have a program influx of dollars like they did with pl 566, to the tune of five to $600 million. You might have heard on the national scene, they’re talking about this being a quote, once in a lifetime opportunity, funding opportunity, again, with infrastructure and the different things that are being put out there. And why not here, why not the same grain. So that really led to us conversing with the NRCS. And the NRCS said, when we first met that with them, and talk to him about the different projects that we have the local funding match that we have with the tax increase that the voters approved, they said, we’ve been around the state looking for a partner, the term they use to do business with, we’ve been looking for a partner, to be able to sponsor rather to be able to work with a pl 566 program, and you just presented it. So we have a very strong compelling case here locally that we have a need for these kinds of things. And we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take advantage of those dollars. So that really fast track some of what we were talking about implementing over the next decade plus, you overlay that on top of a renovation and you’ve got the established communities in northeast Colorado, you got Longmont Greeley Boulder, Fort Collins, and Loveland. And aside from Greeley, those communities aren’t growing at the pace and scale that they used to have grown at. So your boards, the city councils, you’re all looking out 1020 3050 years ahead of time looking at what that next growth increment could be and where that water supply would come from. I would contend that that chapters so long as growth restrictions continue to be or communities have been satisfied with their growth potential that we’re going to have infill. And we need to start looking at drought protection or modification and maximizing more water out of the system. So if you look at a map of st grand Creek, and you had to map out how to be efficient with water, you would more likely say I’m going to put a reservoir high in the system. And I’m going to put a reservoir down low on the system. Well, that was me button rock and happens to be union. And then you’d likely say and I would take the low quality, untreatable union reservoir water and I would pump it back to the ditches and I will take that ditch water and move it up to my water treatment plan. Well, that’s the plan that back in the built Nelson days and generations after that, they said hey, why don’t we maximize? We’re in that era. Now we’re in how do we maximize the water. And we deal with certification, which is not something they were necessarily dealing with. The last piece is quality of life. The appeal 566 program, they have examples nationwide, where they built campgrounds and parks along reservoirs and waterways, they want to fund these kinds of projects. We all know the stories and you were probably out there and union reservoir during COVID, one in and one out. When you look at the quality of life in this area, whether you’re looking at affordable housing, and where’s that water going to come from? When you look at the recreational opportunities, this program fits really nicely into it. So what we’re desirous of is we need to really start having that next chapter of conversations in the valley about what do we want for the next generation. And these once in a lifetime opportunities if they stay true to be once in a lifetime aren’t going to come around necessarily. Again, as Scott highlighted, there are years in the making to get the money to the big dollars, a 240 million. That’s the construction. But if we came to you and said, Hey, we got this great opportunity to have the federal government pay all the way through design 100%. We don’t jump at it. But these projects are going to take some time in terms of collaboration, what do we want? What size do we want? How do we want it to work out? How do we engage with the public? What sort of features do we like? We need to start having those conversations now. So part of we’re excited when Wes called us and said hey, would you come in and talk to us about pl 566 We’re equally excited about the opportunity to come share With view again this once in a lifetime opportunity, secondly, encourage you to continue to inquire as to what other projects we have, we’d love to come back and talk to you about those. And then lastly, we’re looking for some type of Spark, either this board or the Parks and Recreation board or ultimately City Council on, can we sit down with staff and a community and start working out these details to really look at what sort of opportunities that we want to try to take advantage of and be ready for that next generational project? So happy to we have time for questions.

Speaker 3 30:34
We’re open question. We have six different categories of projects. Get a sense from your status, whether they were approved, something is wonderful six, already, we have one. Does that kind of less likely to get the others are pretty much 100% independent? You get them already and none of them.

Speaker 4 31:03
So So what they’re doing with a Pipher, they do cost benefit analysis, and they do some other things. They might say, for example, one of the projects we have is forest prief, wildfire mitigation, and they said, maybe not maybe, well, maybe not. So they’re going back and forth internally on whether that’s the case, they might say in the pepper stage, nope, that doesn’t get funded. But the rest of it continues to move on. So there may be one where they say, hey, it gets funded, but it’s we believe it’s in this particular category. And that is the 50% match. Locally, we might say we can’t afford that. At which point we can take that out. What again, separates I think, from the rest of the nation is we have this local source of funding, and you can do the math on to under 40 million. Not sure we could do that at 50% match when you start getting up to 75 or 100%, the numbers start to shake out. Yes,

Speaker 6 32:02
first of all, my apologies for coming in late. So I had a question about the EMA process. So there was a mention a couple of times about like that being the designation between those two being more of a kind of a cost threshold or something. And I guess I thought that the designation between those would be more like determination of impact. Right. So can you comment on that, and whether the timeline that’s been kind of presented for the VA committee process in general is perhaps a little generous? I mean, I’m, I’m kind of skewed towards larger projects. So But certainly, it can take years and years.

Speaker 5 32:54
Certainly, the the main difference from what I understand in a programmatic approach to the university is viewed, yes, if projects are over $25 million, or over that biometric threshold for storage, they require actually approval from congressional committees, the, I believe Senate and House ad committees. And so as input as like stakeholder public input, they use the EIS process for public input for the congressional approval.

Speaker 4 33:31
So detail on that that I think you might be asking is, for lack of a better term, there’s programmatic approval for pl 566 to go under an EA, except that a certain certain dollar amount and a certain volume amount, you have to get that congressional approval, calm, the committee’s have said our way to deal with that, instead of having a bunch of hearings and having people go out, go the EIS route, and then we’ll, we’ll do that input. If you stay under that threshold, it’s already sort of pre approved that the NRCS has the federal authorization to do these projects under an EA.

Speaker 5 34:09
Identification. I think if there was some significant impact that was identified in our process, yeah, we kick it into the potential more much sense.

Speaker 2 34:18
Thank you for this. I can see where a union is impacted. You mentioned but not part of this picture. Correct. The other thing, taxpayer property tax increase, or taxpayer pays to you out to property tax increases beyond city long, correct all of your areas, correct?

Speaker 4 34:45
Yeah, so Scott went in on that map with the line around it sort of Continental Divide, all the way east of I 25 with the confidence of a solid plan. So Longmont being the largest population and not only area, but certainly between here in Lyons as an example of county properties, they pay property tax. Water Conservancy District pre vote, it was point 156 mills. And we asked the voters if they would increase that to one, ink, add 1.25 to the mill. And I proved that to about 70% of it. Yes. And what

Unknown Speaker 35:27
what year was November of 2020?

Speaker 4 35:34
At the time the world was coming to an end and you have one shot, I was thinking

Unknown Speaker 35:42
about that union

Speaker 7 35:44
project, the pump back project, if you were to if you were to expand that project to include agriculture,

Speaker 3 35:52
what would so you’d have to have some of the

Speaker 7 35:56
storage and carrying capacity for now use? What happens if you did that? And then that declined in use over time? Do we have any idea how long that would have to hold like that?

Speaker 4 36:11
So if say, for example, MSDS said, Hey, this qualifies under ag right. So they actually do have some requirements around hey, if if you’re going to accept this money under these conditions, we need some assurances that you’re not going to bait and switch that later. So we would have to, I think, demonstrate that that’s in place. I think with you know, even in Weld County, there’s conservation easements for agriculture, but certainly in this area, I think we can prove up that AG is going to be around a while for the conservation business.

Unknown Speaker 36:50

Unknown Speaker 36:51
thanks so much for the time appreciate the opportunity.

Unknown Speaker 37:00
Okay, the agenda revisions.

Unknown Speaker 37:13
Tell me about it. Okay, I guess I’m there in general business.

Unknown Speaker 37:27
Okay, I am from the staff. Jason,

Speaker 7 37:30
got a few things I wanted to talk to you about. To recall, we’ve got the celsion green pipeline pump station that we’ve installed. We’re still working with the pump station manufacturers and Nautilus to address the migration issues. It’s more vibration analysis, testing. Last Monday, we got a report. And we’re still looking at the pumps themselves, physically mechanically refined hydraulic condition in the discharge pipe that’s causing some reverberations, and seeing some real high vibrations to the extent that if we ran for a period of time to three weeks that the welds and stuff would start failing, so many, we really need to do some additional bracing. So meeting with the pump station manufacturer, we do have their vice presidents involved in this. And so they’re reassured us that they’re committed to making the compensation work. So unfortunately, we’re not able to use it right now. But hopefully, during the maybe the next six months, we’ll have it online. Other than that, the project is complete the sense that we just can’t force it. And then the other thing I was going to give you a quick update on is I’m working with one of our on call contractors and excavating to give me a proposal to do the upper foot rock dam on the south abutments. There’s been some heavy erosion over time, that’s the corner of the reservoir, the dam that gets hit really hard with debris and logs and when it just over time, it’s just kind of chiseled away at the embankment. So we’re looking to import some, some work graph. And to reinforce that that’s something that the state inspector has been calling out on for the past couple years. And so we’re finally moving forward with the contractor. We got funding and everything in place to do that. I’m just waiting on them to give you the cost proposal for that initiated contract and we’ll be demobilized hopefully take advantage of what rockers are getting low, for example, but lower right now and that, that that washed out area is now exposed and we’ve got good access to it. So hopefully in the next month, we can firm that up. So

Speaker 8 39:44
does that look at you like calling on me or?

Unknown Speaker 39:48
Oh, no, I saw your handout. Yeah, of course I do.

Speaker 8 39:53
You said that you have funding ready, and yet you’re getting a proposal. So a lot of the time cities over engineering schools come in over expected funding, are you likely to be in that situation as well?

Speaker 7 40:09
Hopefully not. I think I’ve put in a pretty conservative budget request for that. And if it ends up coming in more than I posted, I can reprioritize a couple projects, maybe put some things off to next year, or later in the season that

Unknown Speaker 40:25
will favor this one. Yes.

Unknown Speaker 40:26
This is a this is a

Speaker 2 40:30
this might be a dated question, but given the degree in button after the morning 13. federal monitor agreed.

Unknown Speaker 40:44

Unknown Speaker 40:47
still around,

Speaker 7 40:48
I think the majority of is now gone. Can might be able to speak to it better than I can. But I do recall it literally logged in float across the board going over the spillway to then remove that has gone down over time. But there’s always three or four logs being pushed against the dam.

Speaker 3 41:09
Yeah, we had part of the recovery we did are two major three things one was the law of weed. And then the other was granting refereeing or sand and gravel products. The woody debris we actually contracted SEMA money, we’ve pulled over 300,000 cubic yards, three out of the reservoir construction, some of it was taken off and a lot of it was put in storage area in the borough area. So how and why way from the reservoir, some of that subject already been cut

Unknown Speaker 41:55
in for firewood, all while

Speaker 3 41:58
still mostly back there, a lot of the material the smaller stuff was kind of cut up in see that some of the bar area were very thick, so that allows extra long term health some of the other material at some point we get sufficient for st capacity will probably emerge on the lives of forestry work, we haven’t done a burden yet. We’ll have greater degrees still in the lab, we’re monitoring now pretty closely knew the environmental impacts and moving it out

Unknown Speaker 42:54
the benefit doesn’t

Speaker 3 43:00
take a lot of bass from the reservoir. So that part is at some point we probably will point at least move some of it we quite honestly want to wait until after we get funding project is completed because to remove the Evergreen the drain reservoir waters water so once Jimmy Hall was done full week, 1000 acre feet of capacity up there and you’re feeling much better about

Unknown Speaker 43:39
okay, so future project for today’s so do over the years in the future. Anything else?

Speaker 7 43:49
Where is the source of the rabbit terrible injury? Or how can I help what kind of distance to convey a lot of heavy stuff?

Unknown Speaker 43:57
What the hell yeah,

Speaker 7 43:58
I think makes it even worse with color and materials. They’ll get it directly from a quarry and they’ll have a cultural history from a quarry augmentation site northeast northwest of one month and I’m not sure which one to use and it depends on which rocket we want and I’ve asked him to try to match existing rockets there which is kind of like that pink granite type rock it was a suspect from

Speaker 7 44:31
well, we’ll also look at you know, if there’s a potential cost of drilling a different trail, but the chances the goal is trying to find a riprap that matches the existence of a blended in. It just looks natural

Speaker 3 44:54
so, unfortunately, he got sick today. So we’re gonna have have to guess postpone most of the conversation, I thought I would just give you real quick update on our water efficiency master planning effort as you as you may call it, or we need to buy some water at our water efficiency master plan. We’ve got that RPF. Open, the consultant has been selected to do that work. And it’s actually water Diem, which is one of the I guess probably the preeminent water efficiency master planning firm state, their principal health right to see WCB. So we’re, we’re free to start that process will be starting that process this summer. So I’m kind of excited about launching that will come back in June give you just a little more update on the scheduling and waterboard way in and also participating in some of the processes we put forward. Okay, so that’s kind of exciting to actually have that project to start, then I’ll just prefer the rest of the update.

Speaker 6 46:40
I would have asked to hope that I’m impatient, apparently. So on the figure, you know, that says per residential per capita use? Is that is that water that? Like goes to? Let’s see. So let’s say that you have like an industrial or somebody that’s not using necessarily like it’s not water from the same kind of industrial users. But if it’s treated water, does that get designated as residential use? Words, like any water that’s treated and is delivered to through a pipe to the city? Is residential use no matter what organization?

Speaker 3 47:21
Well, actually, it’s kind of an interesting for me, it’s always interesting. So there’s really people when people talk about per capita use, there’s really two ways they got one is called what’s called what I call gross per capita, gross sales capita. And that’s basically your treated water number that you want are you treating sent out of your water treatment plant into the system? That’s wrong. That’s a little bit higher number and then the other is individual like a single family. So we have near records and so we can look at go from just the single family just the multifamily just to commercial just institutional governmental system law. So all of that we’re going to look at BZ number of courses. Gross. Yeah.

Speaker 6 48:31
what winds up in, in like the figure that was in the report that was

Speaker 3 48:37
that was intended to be the second number was intended to be the single family residential, unfortunately, the, the the data that came into that area, so we got to, we got to calculate that use the pivot table to bring the data from the meter records into the spreadsheet, that pivot table area. So next month, hopefully we’ll have with the actual

Speaker 6 49:14
hours. Yeah, I was thinking the one that’s like, it popped right in the first page. I guess it takes Oh, I’m like, this is gallons per capita, per day. Is that Yeah, it’s average. It says average residential use next to it. But I’m just always curious about when you do that, whether you take out from the meters or whether you just take that like water leaving the the treatment plant divided by population.

Unknown Speaker 49:43
Yeah, that’s

Unknown Speaker 49:44
gross gasps

Speaker 3 49:47
full treated water provided by the 100,000 population. If you look at the 2022 just 138 gallons a day are actual live If we’re looking at just a

Unknown Speaker 50:01
single family,

Speaker 3 50:04
for cavity uses is a 90 to 95. Day show. Yeah, that’s why I always struggle a little bit of gross. You have to think, you know, you have to think of the system. There are some systems that have one reason, you know, we were up to in 2002 for 200. White one we are now part of that was partially because we had all foods open and operating. And they use a ton of water that drives you per capita, your gross per capita? Yeah.

Speaker 6 50:40
So the reason that I ask is because I’m trying to describe this to students all the time, right? Like, it’s not just like, literally, when they come on the water, whatever comes out of the closet, or whatever comes out of the shower, or wherever they put on their yard or something. They’re always responsible for, like some additional fractional amount of water for the t shirt they got made, or for the three did not wash, or whatever, or the drink that they got at the restaurant, right. And so there’s like, this broader concept of like water footprint. And this is like, almost like a community water footprint.

Speaker 3 51:12
Right? Yes. Yeah. So this, this is a gross, yeah.

Speaker 8 51:18
Yeah. So that’s the per capita is a really squishy concept, because because in here, you’ve got sub national level now breweries, which is a ton of water, but that’s in its gross number, right. And it’s also they have a bunch of employers, employees that come into the city that are not in the per capita number, but while they’re here during the day, they drink water and flush toilets and even take showers because they might didn’t. So it’s a very squishy number, I guess it’s not going to get across. So

Speaker 6 51:55
what’s kind of amazing about it is that even in light of all that stuff, right, but the numbers are coming down. Right? Pretty significant. And so even in light of all the things that are happening, right, like, I would imagine that if he just did residential, like just residential water

Unknown Speaker 52:16
years or something, greater

Speaker 6 52:22
savings or something because of that increasing potential increase in the eventual use, although it sounds like

Unknown Speaker 52:28
one user in the past those

Unknown Speaker 52:33
first four columns is what that is, like per capita calculation.

Speaker 9 52:42
So when I was doing conservation in Fort Collins, I was adamant about trying to talk about residential gallons per capita per day, because I put it in a circle it was it was a flat number, they were never going to change. Right. And, and actually, we’re pretty efficient on their water beer ratio. But yeah, and I would suspect, not to speak for him. But from a conservation specialist perspective. Sometimes if your programs are also targeting residential, you really want to say hey, this is what we’re aiming for. This is what we’re changing versus whatever else is going on in the community commercialise. So that’s one reason to go essential but even that number still has this fish in it because if you have a community with a certain population, and this is the residential and everybody needs town or day, it goes and work somewhere else that messes with your number. So I always say don’t do too much comparing city to city because some cities bring people in to work some people some cities for people to work so like

Speaker 8 53:50
I said it’d be hard to say which was which for long run because we have a lot of people coming in and underwater

Speaker 7 53:57
Yeah, so that’s an interesting question there. That was here how you look at that that compares city to city right on a given time step but if you go back in time, when did we begin to have really good residential meter numbers? Because I don’t think it was

Speaker 3 54:17
oh, 205 Or oh six is when we went to about three years because the university ammeter we have some flat rates you know, two we got some flat rates.

Speaker 7 54:27
Yeah, just taking it there’s a time in which the actual year to year compared to our makes more sense than going back further in time and getting back into time and that just wasn’t available information.

Speaker 3 54:38
Once we became fully leader 2007 I don’t remember exactly. Yeah. Probably Probably just started looking at about seven or seven or eight point clothes that are out here. I got a lot of water out Honestly, honestly, 2002 was the drought year. So Oh, six and seven was a drought. So if you look at that graph, you can also pick out the drought years. Yeah. And a lot of it’s what happens in spring. We had a better price break. Cool. Spring that helped us keep our number down a little bit this year. Yeah, if you have a really, really warm, hot ring, you just start putting water out earlier in the year 2000? Do we really belong to water spring

Speaker 9 55:43
2020 wasn’t quite a drought here either. But it was also a big, let’s call it water sales here. At least, there were water leaving, we had a lot of work to go. That was kind of a that was a huge deal. It wasn’t super clear.

Unknown Speaker 56:11
But there was a lot of

Speaker 9 56:15
and that was a it was a lot of water teachers. So to keep our first summer, our first new summer. Okay.

Speaker 3 56:27
Yeah, let me makes it makes it pretty easy. For me that doesn’t record. So I’m just gonna cheat and show you the report, instruction update.

Speaker 3 56:49
So this is a picture today of the reservoir construction. And one thing I wanted to point out in here, at this point, if you look at these pictures, you can actually see the outline of the dam itself as it’s coming up. We can see the hydraulic ask for asphalt core going in, there’s a contained gravel on each side. So that’s really your core, your dam, that this is the failure to do. So the pictures now are kind of nice, because you can you can really see what’s going on.

Unknown Speaker 57:34
This is just kind of a side profile of the dam. For this, we’re at this point, this is how high the dam is right now. So I think around 70 feet or so

Speaker 3 58:02
obviously, it’s much wider at the bottom. But as it builds up, it gets narrower, but it gets wider, side to side. So the blue line here is the original ground line. And so we’re just if you go out there, it’s hard to tell there’s a dam there even though 75 foot tall, because it’s basically just on the downstream side. It’s a little higher than the original ground line. On the upstream side. It’s right out about the ground. Pretty much meet the ground here. So so the pictures don’t look like a dam. Yes. But not to worry. There is one there and it’s starting up and march progress. This is where the project is. This these numbers are the construction contract. So the total projects a little over 600 billion, but the construction contract. The original construction contract did out for 85 and the 43 million and changeovers lower half of that was a federal lawsuit. 22 point 5 million for that. So the revised construction contract is a 520 million. The red line indicates what they’ve earned to date. This orange line is kind of the lowest at the start of the construction, you kind of project what work you’ll do. What you’ll do the orange line if you go below that you’re really behind schedule. The blue line is SPECT is the fastest construction. Right now we’re about 38% Using dollars as your as your measurement 38% Complete. Because the good news good and bad news, money real quick money with the contractors decided to increase their scheduled or on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And so they’re, they’re really pumping out some work now, this red line is they’ve actually been doing pretty good today. But they’re they’re in the middle of it, they’ve indicated because they’ve got 24 scheduled, they’re going to start getting a little bit higher actually hoped to get the project done about four to six months earlier than projected. So that’s good. sooner they can get that was better. So that’s where we are with actually construction contract itself

Speaker 2 1:01:03
is the AMIGO get to that but as the compensation to the conservative contractor, this is problematic with them increasing the schedule, as far as they need to be paid.

Speaker 3 1:01:16
They know it will increase the contractors what contracts paid. So that won’t cost the project getting the little bit of additional logic a little bit, a few million dollars of additional costs. Because the design engineer and construction management now has to go on 24/7 And that becomes a little more expensive well offset by the value of project. I mean you spend a lot of money on the project so that the contractor will really I think you know, for them I suspect it’s just quicker they can get it done. They can save money on

Speaker 6 1:02:08
the project. So this is for construction with them again when they are anticipating speeding bill, that’s

Speaker 3 1:02:25
it would have been 26 Yeah, because originally they were looking at late 25 to be done, person can’t pump we would have probably put some water in it for 25 Winter 26 Probably not if we had any CVT water in Granby, remove the gap water and gravity would move some of that over. Also some of the previous wall part of the project and we have great decision. CDP water in there. So we’ll probably bring some preposition with basically a little bit in spring of 26 that we would have popped in the app and tried to put it in there probably not going to get the puppy the 2025 if we bought that year probably won’t be able to pump out early enough like 2425 But it’s possible

Speaker 6 1:03:30
so so other than I mean I guess I expected that maybe that was the reason to kind of timeline but what’s the rationale?

Speaker 3 1:03:40
I think there is no rationale just just get it done get it done they don’t they just hit I think they just hit a million man hours of work. So you know to get 1000 people out there working wanted laborers laborers was expensive they you know, we’ll get them

Speaker 3 1:04:15
This is Mr. Just had a summary of the change orders of the $40 million budgeted contingency and so far had 44 change orders. One One thing we wanted to highlight one change order. This came Angeles on the on the left above better in the west side of the reservoir rooms. As you go up so steep there was a rock slide. That rock slide was on, cleared out for the dam. So as a lot of unbuckle Look rock drilling and rock bolting stabilize the hillside then never This is currently where they are right now, we’ve just started on the upstream. So the delta that they’re doing the tunnel, now that tunnel comes from both sides, we’ve done the downstream to the gate chamber in the middle. And now that started on the upstream side and coming in. Fortunately, the rain hit and the total outlet hill slopes down so when they’re working on the bottom part, they didn’t have to worry about any moisture working on the top one it slopes down so all this rain went into a tunnel gonna mess up their tunnel maybe money then you can see some a different this different schedules of conduits and other main down for the expected that’s it. So anyway, going well.

Speaker 3 1:06:26
So that’s, that’s where the project is right now. We hope to have a little more information next month when we do cash a little, I think we’ll summarize will give you a summary of all the change orders. Because I think at some point, we need to start talking about how project costs might weigh in on the cash flow calculation because we’re using

Unknown Speaker 1:06:53
the project is one portion

Speaker 3 1:06:55
of our cash in relation to that that’s what we do cash relation for June, in the decide do we want to propose? Would we want to look at it either in June or in September of adjusting that number based

Unknown Speaker 1:07:17
on your project costs.

Speaker 7 1:07:23
So question can find a pipeline of cash in lieu proposals coming in? Steady, relatively slow? I mean, where are we at with requests for people needing or requiring?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:37
Well, we just got one in yesterday. But another Nevertheless, you probably know,

Speaker 9 1:07:44
there’s a number of developments that are positioned that they can satisfy at any time. But there’s other factors that there have to weigh in as part of the audience. I believe some of those projects will probably be bringing in accommodation about a story and cash. Some people that though they have projects that they’re going to have coming soon, they’ve done a little bit of diligence and trying to acquire spots for people there’s going to be is a slight low, as some of the few little pieces of NodeSource are available. And then we’re gonna follow that cash

Speaker 7 1:08:23
strapped out down low gives us another 90 days. So until September, whatever we need to push it that was kind of rough.

Speaker 9 1:08:30
Yeah, I these people, they could go into check tomorrow. I understand. But I don’t I think they’re probably for the last conversations I had. It was summer, early fall, and they were planning to move forward. That’s all I can say.

Speaker 3 1:08:50
That’s all I got. Just know we got to break up pretty quick for the interviews, but I just wanted to remind the board that next month. Juneteenth is a third Monday so our actual meeting will be the next Monday 26th as well as the tour of the Jimmy Olsen so we’ll send out information for those of you who are going on that tour in the morning. Okay, yeah.

Speaker 2 1:09:25
Any other items? Or marketing

Speaker 8 1:09:33
you know, I know I thought the windy gap sounded scarier the first time you know can smooth out the rough spots in terms of awesome deuces.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:54
You been able to grow

Speaker 2 1:09:57
we’ve got something going for you right so all right

Transcribed by https://otter.ai